# PCC to be reviewed



## rulefan (Jan 6, 2022)

https://www.thegolfbusiness.co.uk/2...ould-be-taken-more-into-account-for-handicaps


----------



## Canary Kid (Jan 6, 2022)

Any idea how they could do that?  The calculation of a handicap is a precise mathematical exercise (albeit based upon an element of spurious data in the form of the slope rating), but any adjustment for conditions would surely be somewhat arbitrary.


----------



## sweaty sock (Jan 6, 2022)

Putting lipstick on a pig as far as I'm concerned.  

Much prefer ratchet system over the  average calculation...


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 6, 2022)

Canary Kid said:



			Any idea how they could do that?  The calculation of a handicap is a precise mathematical exercise (albeit based upon an element of spurious data in the form of the slope rating), *but any adjustment for conditions would surely be somewhat arbitrary*.
		
Click to expand...

That too IS and would be 'a precise mathematical exercise' albeit using data that is somewhat random.  
It simply needs looking at because it doesn't seem to reflect its purpose very well.


----------



## sweaty sock (Jan 6, 2022)

Its a particular pain because of general play rounds. 

Most players avoid putting in general play rounds during poor conditions so its very difficult to justify a change if theres only a small number of data points.  The problem existed with css too, but the seldom general play rounds meant the issue never came up...


----------



## Maninblack4612 (Jan 6, 2022)

Canary Kid said:



			Any idea how they could do that?  The calculation of a handicap is a precise mathematical exercise (albeit based upon an element of spurious data in the form of the slope rating), but any adjustment for conditions would surely be somewhat arbitrary.
		
Click to expand...

Surely a mathematical calculation could be made comparing average scores returned in easy conditions with those in more challenging weather. From experience, my score in very windy conditions, which are common on my exposed course, is likely to be up to 6 shots higher than I would shoot in ideal conditions. If follows that the handicap of anyone who, like me, doesn't play when conditions are bad is likely to be too low *OR* the PCC doesn't work properly. I'm convinced that it is the latter. You shouldn't be able to manipulate your handicap by choosing the conditions in which you play.


----------



## Imurg (Jan 6, 2022)

Maninblack4612 said:



			Surely a mathematical calculation could be made comparing average scores returned in easy conditions with those in more challenging weather. From experience, my score in very windy conditions, which are common on my exposed course, is likely to be up to 6 shots higher than I would shoot in ideal conditions. If follows that the handicap of anyone who, like me, doesn't play when conditions are bad is likely to be too low *OR* the PCC doesn't work properly. I'm convinced that it is the latter. You shouldn't be able to manipulate your handicap by choosing the conditions in which you play.
		
Click to expand...

That's been happening for years.
I can remember low handicappers withdrawing from comps because the weather meant an almost certain 0.1..


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 6, 2022)

Maninblack4612 said:



			Surely a mathematical calculation could be made comparing average scores returned in easy conditions with those in more challenging weather. From experience, my score in very windy conditions, which are common on my exposed course, is likely to be up to 6 shots higher than I would shoot in ideal conditions. If follows that the handicap of anyone who, like me, doesn't play when conditions are bad is likely to be too low *OR* the PCC doesn't work properly. I'm convinced that it is the latter. You shouldn't be able to manipulate your handicap by choosing the conditions in which you play.
		
Click to expand...

I agree with some of this. Though how YOU score in very windy conditions may not, in itself, reflect how anybody/everybody else scores in those conditions.


----------



## Bdill93 (Jan 6, 2022)

Its broken at the minute for sure

Ive got historical scores from pre-WHS comps that have PCC's of 2 or 3 in conditions that were better than Ive played in this year and not a single score has had a PCC added to it.


----------



## wjemather (Jan 6, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			Its broken at the minute for sure

Ive got *historical scores from pre-WHS* comps that have PCC's of 2 or 3 in conditions that were better than Ive played in this year and not a single score has had a PCC added to it.
		
Click to expand...

They are not PCCs - they are merely transposed CSS calculations. Chances are, if they were able to be recalculated using PCC, most would be zero.


----------



## Bdill93 (Jan 6, 2022)

wjemather said:



			They are not PCCs - they are merely transposed CSS calculations. Chances are, if they were able to be recalculated using PCC, most would be zero.
		
Click to expand...

Point stands - used to have adjustments pre-WHS for playing conditions being tough and now we have zero.


----------



## Brechin balata (Jan 6, 2022)

Everyone knows that a 3 handicap at one course is maybe 7 at another.


----------



## JamesR (Jan 6, 2022)

Brechin balata said:



			Everyone knows that a 3 handicap at one course is maybe 7 at another.
		
Click to expand...

They might well be the same handicap, but shoot different scores because of course difficulty, hence course rating differences (or previously SSS).


----------



## wjemather (Jan 6, 2022)

Maninblack4612 said:



			Surely a mathematical calculation could be made comparing average scores returned in easy conditions with those in more challenging weather. From experience, my score in very windy conditions, which are common on my exposed course, is likely to be up to 6 shots higher than I would shoot in ideal conditions. If follows that the handicap of anyone who, like me, doesn't play when conditions are bad is likely to be too low *OR* the PCC doesn't work properly. I'm convinced that it is the latter. You shouldn't be able to manipulate your handicap by choosing the conditions in which you play.
		
Click to expand...

Prevalent windy conditions are (or should be) accounted for in the Course and Slope Ratings. As such, PCC should not be expected to move upwards just because it's windy; in fact, the opposite is likely true, and it may be expected to move down in calm conditions.

Of course, it is impossible to control when people choose to play and conditions affect different players scoring very differently. Just because you estimate you're 6 strokes worse in the wind, doesn't that anyone else is. And like everyone, I'm sure you're more than capable of having a disaster in ideal scoring conditions.


----------



## wjemather (Jan 6, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			Point stands - used to have adjustments pre-WHS for playing conditions being tough and now we have zero.
		
Click to expand...

This is never how it has worked. And how could it, since "playing conditions being tough" is entirely subjective.

CSS was heavily skewed by the scoring of a small number of lower handicap players based on an unrealistic expectation that they can be expected to return scores within a stroke of their handicap. Extensive analysis has shown that even elite (scratch or better) players should be expected to return scores up to two or three strokes worse than that. If UHS had accounted for this, buffers would have been much greater and CSS would have moved about as regularly as PCC does.

PCC is much more balanced in how it accounts for scores from across the handicap range, and is orders of magnitude more realistic about players expected scoring ability.


----------



## wjemather (Jan 6, 2022)

Brechin balata said:



			Everyone knows that a 3 handicap at one course is maybe 7 at another.
		
Click to expand...

That was certainly true before WHS, but with Slope, it certainly should not be the case now.


----------



## IanM (Jan 6, 2022)

There's too much scope for sarcasm here....   from me mainly!

Where I think there's an issue, is a perceived lack of logic on occasion. 

Users of something need to have a level of understanding of likely outcomes.   Note,  I'm defining "users" as average club golfers, not rules students.


----------



## Imurg (Jan 6, 2022)

wjemather said:



			PCC is much more balanced in how it accounts for scores from across the handicap range, and is orders of magnitude more realistic about players expected scoring ability.
		
Click to expand...

How do we know when we don't know how PCC is calculated because they won't publish it..?


----------



## Swango1980 (Jan 6, 2022)

I've heard many golfers question the PCC calculation, and that it makes no sense. Despite no one actually knowing how it works, I've also heard other golfers strongly defend it. So, does that mean that if the PCC calculation is reviewed and changed, will the first set of golfers be justified in their questioning of it?


----------



## rulefan (Jan 6, 2022)

Imurg said:



			How do we know when we don't know how PCC is calculated because they won't publish it..?
		
Click to expand...

Because of the words used in Rule 5.6 when describing the WHS algorithm as opposed to the tables demonstrating the UHS bias.


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Jan 6, 2022)

Imurg said:



			How do we know when we don't know how PCC is calculated because they won't publish it..?
		
Click to expand...

Because they tell us that is the case.

Got to laugh when windy conditions are factored into CR and Slope, every course in Cumbria has been a cut and paste job for CR I don't think there has been a single change from the old SSS to new CR in either parkland or links courses. For example our rated mens tees were SSS 70.4, 71.8 and 72.6. Guess what, under WHS the CR is exactly the same


----------



## IanM (Jan 6, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Because of the words used in Rule 5.6 when describing the WHS algorithm as opposed to the tables demonstrating the UHS bias.
		
Click to expand...

Translation?


----------



## wjemather (Jan 6, 2022)

Imurg said:



			How do we know when we don't know how PCC is calculated because they won't publish it..?
		
Click to expand...

The vast majority of people would be none the wiser is the calculations were published in full - they would probably more confused, if anything. For those that would understand the mathematics, there is enough of an overview of the calculations published in the Rules of Handicapping.


----------



## wjemather (Jan 6, 2022)

saving_par said:



			Got to laugh when windy conditions are factored into CR and Slope, every course in Cumbria has been a cut and paste job for CR *I don't think there has been a single change from the old SSS to new CR* in either parkland or links courses. For example our rated mens tees were SSS 70.4, 71.8 and 72.6. Guess what, under WHS the CR is exactly the same 

Click to expand...

And nor should there be. The USGA's Course and Slope Rating system was adopted by CONGU long before WHS and was used to calculate SSS. As such, the SSS should simply have been equal to the rounded Course Rating.


----------



## Bdill93 (Jan 6, 2022)

wjemather said:



			This is never how it has worked. And how could it, since *"playing conditions being tough" is entirely subjective*.

CSS was heavily skewed by the scoring of a small number of lower handicap players based on an unrealistic expectation that they can be expected to return scores within a stroke of their handicap. Extensive analysis has shown that even elite (scratch or better) players should be expected to return scores up to two or three strokes worse than that. If UHS had accounted for this, buffers would have been much greater and CSS would have moved about as regularly as PCC does.

PCC is much more balanced in how it accounts for scores from across the handicap range, and is orders of magnitude more realistic about players expected scoring ability.
		
Click to expand...

It doesnt take a genius to notice worse playing conditions though. I have played in far worse this year, high wind, rain, boggy ground all sorts! Ive seen whole comp fields ranging from 4 to 30+ come in with less than 30 points and no PCC made...

Makes no sense at all.


----------



## Imurg (Jan 6, 2022)

Given the number of times PCC doesn't kick in could it be that the calculation is just too complex and too many things need to fall into place for it to operate?
The fact that it's being reviewed suggests so....
After all, if it's going to kick in so few times there seems little point in having it.


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Jan 6, 2022)

wjemather said:



			And nor should there be. The USGA's Course and Slope Rating system was adopted by CONGU long before WHS and was used to calculate SSS. As such, the SSS should simply have been equal to the rounded Course Rating.
		
Click to expand...

So you are saying prevalent windy conditions were factored in under the old system then a CSS was applied on top of this?


----------



## wjemather (Jan 6, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			It doesnt take a genius to notice worse playing conditions though. I have played in far worse this year, high wind, rain, boggy ground all sorts! Ive seen whole comp fields ranging from 4 to 30+ come in with less than 30 points and no PCC made...

Makes no sense at all.
		
Click to expand...

Remember: there is a difference between "playing conditions" and "scoring conditions", and 36 points is not "playing to handicap".


----------



## Bdill93 (Jan 6, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Remember: there is a difference between "playing conditions" and "scoring conditions", and *36 points is not "playing to handicap*".
		
Click to expand...

Nope, 38 would be at my place. 

Your arguments are rubbish though. PCC needs addressing - its pretty obvious.


----------



## wjemather (Jan 6, 2022)

saving_par said:



			So you are saying prevalent windy conditions were factored in under the old system then a CSS was applied on top of this?
		
Click to expand...

Essentially, yes. However that is qualified by SSS only accounting for how it would affect scoring for the model scratch golfer, not everyone else (i.e. there was no Slope adjustment).


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Jan 6, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Essentially, yes. However that is qualified by SSS only accounting for how it would affect scoring for the model scratch golfer, not everyone else (i.e. there was no Slope adjustment).
		
Click to expand...

Okay I get that bit.

*The USGA's Course and Slope Rating system was adopted by CONGU long before WHS. *Why on earth have we gone down the road of WHS if we were using the USGA system. Doesn't make any sense other than the suits at the Home Unions being on an ego trip?


----------



## Backache (Jan 6, 2022)

Canary Kid said:



			Any idea how they could do that?  The calculation of a handicap is a precise mathematical exercise (albeit based upon an element of spurious data in the form of the slope rating), but any adjustment for conditions would surely be somewhat arbitrary.
		
Click to expand...

A personal opinion is that Slope rating is one of the better bits of the WHS and I don't see why it's any more spurious than course rating or SSS before that.


----------



## wjemather (Jan 6, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			Nope, 38 would be at my place.

Your arguments are rubbish though. PCC needs addressing - its pretty obvious.
		
Click to expand...

Looking through your club results, I'm not seeing any comps where "whole... fields... come in with less than 30 points" and can see several days when PCC increased (or decreased). Indeed, on the 4th December, 35 points was the best returned in the comp and PCC was 3. Perhaps you are mistaken?


----------



## Bdill93 (Jan 6, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Looking through your club results, I'm not seeing any comps where "whole... fields... come in with less than 30 points" and can see several days when PCC increased (or decreased). Indeed, on the 4th December, 35 points was the best returned in the comp and PCC was 3. Perhaps you are mistaken?
		
Click to expand...

Well done on finding a comp where someone shot over 30... 

Where are you seeing the PCC there?


----------



## Maninblack4612 (Jan 6, 2022)

Brechin balata said:



			Everyone knows that a 3 handicap at one course is maybe 7 at another.
		
Click to expand...

That's what the slope rating is for.


----------



## wjemather (Jan 6, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			Well done on finding a comp where someone shot over 30...

Where are you seeing the PCC there?
		
Click to expand...

You're being a bit silly now - many (if not most) of your clubs Stableford comps are won with scores of 40 pts or higher.
33 pts is the lowest winning score I found doing a quick scan through results on HDID (on 27 November, again with a PCC of 3). Similarly, other poor scoring days have also seen PCCs of 2 or 3.

As handicap chair, I have access to the England Golf WHS portal, so can easily find the PCCs.


----------



## Imurg (Jan 6, 2022)

Bdill93 said:



			Well done on finding a comp where someone shot over 30...

Where are you seeing the PCC there?
		
Click to expand...

Look at our results and you're only getting about 55% of cards going in...the rest are casual rounds...


----------



## Brechin balata (Jan 6, 2022)

Maninblack4612 said:



			That's what the slope rating is for.
		
Click to expand...

Correct 👍


----------



## rulefan (Jan 6, 2022)

saving_par said:



			Okay I get that bit.

*The USGA's Course and Slope Rating system was adopted by CONGU long before WHS. *Why on earth have we gone down the road of WHS *if we were using the USGA system.* Doesn't make any sense other than the suits at the Home Unions being on an ego trip?
		
Click to expand...

The *only* part of the USGA system that CONGU used was that for Course Rating. This was gradually introduced by the then EGU (ie the men's part of what is now the gender merged England Golf) in about 2013. All other parts of CONGU (ie Wales, Scotland, Ireland and England women had rated using USGA for many years before. The SSS in England was similar to the USGA system but arguably lacking in some details and sophistication.
The USGA rating was only done for the scratch player. As there was no 'bogey' rating there was no Slope. In fact some courses were bogey rated specifically for US tourists but never used by CONGU.
Slope only arrived in GB&I with the introduction of WHS


----------



## rulefan (Jan 6, 2022)

saving_par said:



			So you are saying prevalent windy conditions were factored in under the old system then a CSS was applied on top of this?
		
Click to expand...

My recollection is that prevailing wind was not built in to the EGU SSS. But it's a long time since I did an SSS rating.


----------



## IanM (Jan 6, 2022)

Another symptom of the authorities not bothering to engage with golfers in the development of WHS.  The WHS Police needed to explain PCC as a concept, (they did) and give a working explanation of what you will expect to see and how to work it out. (approx)   Saying - "i_t's big -boys' maths, don't worry your wee head aboot it_" doesn't constitute adequate explanation or engagement.

I suspect that most golfers had a "perception/feel" of when CSS would change under the old system.  I also suspect that they expected a similar "feel" for changes to PCC.  Given the definition of it on the website I am sympathetic to that view. 

So, when there are extensive occurrences where players "expected" (rightly or wrongly) a change (up or down) and one didn't happen, they question it. 

It seems to me that the "rules folk" on here continually defend PCC as a process (hard to do as the maths isn't published ) and with some really unconnected explanations (see above) _without_  appreciating what club golfers are saying. 

Gadzooks, the Original Post seems to say that they Authorities are starting to recognise the issue and are looking into it!!

BUT, it also says,_ Iain Forsyth, Scottish Golf’s chief commercial officer, feels that the response to WHS has been “pretty positive overall”.   _I wonder what he means by "overall?" 

I've only had 3 months off work.... I wonder if I should write and offer my services?  Not to make any changes, but to help them explain to their customers!   Yes, customers.


----------



## Swango1980 (Jan 6, 2022)

Maninblack4612 said:



			That's what the slope rating is for.
		
Click to expand...

Do you not mean Course Rating? I can't see a golfer ever having a course handicap of 3 at one course and a course handicap of 7 at another course. Not in the UK anyway, the USA would be different but only because they also factor in the Course Rating to get the course handicap.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 6, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			the USA would be different but only because they also factor in the Course Rating to get the course handicap.
		
Click to expand...

The USA factor in (Course Rating - Par). Not quite the same.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 6, 2022)

wjemather said:



			They are not PCCs - they are merely transposed CSS calculations. Chances are, if they were able to be recalculated using PCC, most would be zero.
		
Click to expand...

And that's the issue!
CSS +/- 1 very likely to have PCC of zero...OK. But CSS of 3 (or RO) still seems likely to have PCC of zero! So no allowance for the apparent tough conditions!


----------



## rulefan (Jan 6, 2022)

I believe the PCC was lifted from Australia. I wonder if the PCC algorithm needs tuning to allow for the probably more variable weather and course conditions that prevail here.


----------



## Ethan (Jan 6, 2022)

It should be easy enough to identify a representative data set, say the median differential for players of a certain handicap range, and then set a correction factor proportional to how discrepant the scores are. You can turn up or down the magnitude of that correction if it is having too little or too much effect.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 6, 2022)

saving_par said:



			Because they tell us that is the case.

Got to laugh when windy conditions are factored into CR and Slope, every course in Cumbria has been a cut and paste job for CR I don't think there has been a single change from the old SSS to new CR in either parkland or links courses. For example our rated mens tees were SSS 70.4, 71.8 and 72.6. Guess what, under WHS the CR is exactly the same 

Click to expand...

Wasn't SSS a whole number? If so (and i'm almost certain that it is), that would suggest a very good reason why they are exactly the same! They were CRs not SSS!


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 6, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I believe the PCC was lifted from Australia. I wonder if the PCC algorithm needs tuning to allow for the probably more variable weather and course conditions that prevail here.
		
Click to expand...

It should already be allowing for that. After all, that's its entire reason for existence!


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Jan 6, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Wasn't SSS a whole number?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, rounded up to nearest whole number for scoring purposes.
I know my old course tried all sort of things to get SSS increased by .2 which would have been a full shot increase, 70.4 to 70.6


----------



## rosecott (Jan 6, 2022)

saving_par said:



			Yes, rounded up to nearest whole number for scoring purposes.
I know my old course tried all sort of things to get SSS increased by .2 which would have been a full shot increase, 70.4 to 70.6
		
Click to expand...

Why would they feel that to be necessary?


----------



## rosecott (Jan 6, 2022)

IanM said:



			It seems to me that the "rules folk" on here continually defend PCC as a process (hard to do as the maths isn't published ) and with some really unconnected explanations (see above) _without_  appreciating what club golfers are saying.
		
Click to expand...

Is it just people who post on here who get uptight over PCC? I can't say I've had a deluge of members questioning it.

Perhaps we have forgotten that the ordinary member did not have access to the tables that were used to set CSS. On the odd occasion when I was asked how CSS was calculated, I used to produce a slip of paper with the following printed on it:

"*Standard Scratch Score (SSS) is the score a scratch player would be expected to score under normal mid-season conditions.*

*Competition Scratch Score (CSS) springs from the proportion of players in a competition achieving buffer or better.*

*For a course with Par 72 and SSS 72, the approximate proportions and resultant CSS are:*


*46% and over = CSS 71 (37 points)
23 to 45% = CSS 72 (36 points)
16 to 22% = CSS 73 (35 points)
10 to 15% = CSS 74 (34 points)
6 to 9% = CSS 75 (33 points)*


*Less than 6% =CSS 75 (33 points) (Reductions Only)*"

When they read that, they went away happy.


----------



## Canary Kid (Jan 6, 2022)

Backache said:



			A personal opinion is that Slope rating is one of the better bits of the WHS and I don't see why it's any more spurious than course rating or SSS before that.
		
Click to expand...

I wasn’t comparing it to any rating methodology in the past … I was merely pointing out that it is inherently spurious.  This is because it cannot be accurately measured.  Distance, time, speed etc. are factors can be be accurately measured, whereas the difficulty of a golf course is not.  One can use parameters that assist with an assessment of how difficult a course may be but, ultimately, any assessment contains a significant element of opinion.  The fact that players disagree on whether course A is more difficult than course B proves this.


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Jan 6, 2022)

rosecott said:



			Why would they feel that to be necessary?
		
Click to expand...

Idiots running the committee thought a SSS of 71 as opposed to 70 thought it would perceive the course to be more highly regarded.

All they achieved by eventually moving a couple of tees back was to make it harder for short hitters and seniors as the tees were moved back on uphill holes. No real change for the better player.

I'd left by then, they had done another couple of things that were Mickey Mouse in my eyes and not looked back since despite it being a couple of miles from my house.


----------



## IanM (Jan 6, 2022)

So, to clarify


rosecott said:



			Is it just people who post on here who get uptight over PCC? I can't say I've had a deluge of members questioning it.

Perhaps we have forgotten that the ordinary member did not have access to the tables that were used to set CSS. On the odd occasion when I was asked how CSS was calculated, I used to produce a slip of paper with the following printed on it:

"*Standard Scratch Score (SSS) is the score a scratch player would be expected to score under normal mid-season conditions.*

*Competition Scratch Score (CSS) springs from the proportion of players in a competition achieving buffer or better.*

*For a course with Par 72 and SSS 72, the approximate proportions and resultant CSS are:*


*46% and over = CSS 71 (37 points)
23 to 45% = CSS 72 (36 points)
16 to 22% = CSS 73 (35 points)
10 to 15% = CSS 74 (34 points)
6 to 9% = CSS 75 (33 points)*


*Less than 6% =CSS 75 (33 points) (Reductions Only)*"

When they read that, they went away happy.
		
Click to expand...


My apologies,  I can't see how that explains PCC.....

Ok, point taken.  Folk got used to CSS.and the chart is an illustration. 

In my experience,  many players now shrug their shoulders and ask "crikey,  how was pcc zero today?"

Regardless of what is behind that,  it needs some management


----------



## Backache (Jan 6, 2022)

Canary Kid said:



			I wasn’t comparing it to any rating methodology in the past … I was merely pointing out that it is inherently spurious.  This is because it cannot be accurately measured.  Distance, time, speed etc. are factors can be be accurately measured, whereas the difficulty of a golf course is not.  One can use parameters that assist with an assessment of how difficult a course may be but, ultimately, any assessment contains a significant element of opinion.  The fact that players disagree on whether course A is more difficult than course B proves this.
		
Click to expand...

We are probably talking at cross purposes but my point was in reference to your comment about handicap being a precise mathematical calculation. The basis of the calculation is the course rating which has as far as I can see a similar degree of subjectivity as a slope calculation. Though of the courses I have played most ratings and slopes seem reasonable.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 6, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Wasn't SSS a whole number?
		
Click to expand...

Yes. When USGA was used it was simply rounded.


----------



## Swango1980 (Jan 6, 2022)

rulefan said:



			The USA factor in (Course Rating - Par). Not quite the same.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is what I said. The US factor in the Course Rating within the course handicap calculation, we do not.


----------



## sweaty sock (Jan 7, 2022)

IanM said:



			So, to clarify



My apologies,  I can't see how that explains PCC.....

Ok, point taken.  Folk got used to CSS.and the chart is an illustration.

In my experience,  many players now shrug their shoulders and ask "crikey,  how was pcc zero today?"

Regardless of what is behind that,  it needs some management
		
Click to expand...

I was interested and wanted to see the tables, took 20 seconds search on the congu website.  Then a 1 minute talk with my handicap sec who gave me the tables.  Looking at the tables for 20 minutes gave me a workable understanding of how the field composition and scoring would effect the css.  I understood to a working level the same day I asked....


----------



## rulefan (Jan 7, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Yeah, that is what I said. The US factor in the Course Rating within the course handicap calculation, we do not.
		
Click to expand...

But factoring in a figure of about 70 (CR) has a far greater significance than a figure of about +/- 3 (CR-Par).

But how does that affect_ a golfer having a course handicap of 3 at one course and a course handicap of 7 at another course_.  Without Par being involved, CR alone doesn't make sense


----------



## rulefan (Jan 7, 2022)

sweaty sock said:



			I was interested and wanted to see the tables, took 20 seconds search on the congu website.  Then a 1 minute talk with my handicap sec who gave me the tables.  Looking at the tables for 20 minutes gave me a workable understanding of how the field composition and scoring would effect the css.  I understood to a working level the same day I asked....
		
Click to expand...

How often was your perception different to the value of the CSS adjustment? Did it ever affect your play?

Whilst the tables told you how the adjustment calculation worked there has never been any justification for how the table values were determined.
Why were fixed categories used as the break points? Why is a 5 capper different to a 6 or 13? Why is a %age of 11-16% or 7-10% used. How were those figures determined?
I have never seen the table entries queried. Why not? Why should PCC be different?


----------



## rulefan (Jan 7, 2022)

The authorities have probably done a massive amount of number crunching to determine the 'fine weather' expected scoring patterns. My feeling is that apart from a few qualified golfing mathematicians, golfers in general would not understand the algorithms involved and moreover would not be able to compare the model scoring with the actual on the the day. Certainly not within 20 minutes.
The outcomes suggest that the algorithms need tweaking in order to match the CSS outcomes. But given that a large part of the world never used a CSS type process before I wonder if PCC is needed at all. In area where the conditions are consistent - no effect. Where conditions are more variable - swings and roundabouts.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 7, 2022)

wjemather said:



			This is never how it has worked. And how could it, since "playing conditions being tough" is entirely subjective.
*
CSS was heavily skewed by the scoring of a small number of lower handicap* players based on an unrealistic expectation that they can be expected to return scores within a stroke of their handicap. Extensive analysis has shown that even elite (scratch or better) players should be expected to return scores up to two or three strokes worse than that. If UHS had accounted for this, buffers would have been much greater and CSS would have moved about as regularly as PCC does.

*PCC is much more balanced in how it accounts for scores from across the handicap range*, and is orders of magnitude more realistic about players expected scoring ability.
		
Click to expand...

Both of these are untrue, the weighting towards lower handicap categories was only slight, and it's not the balance that's been changed per se, but the fact that scoring being affected by adverse, or very good weather, is now almost non-existent because PCC is nowhere near sensitive enough to change and reflect that


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			How often was your perception different to the value of the CSS adjustment? Did it ever affect your play?

Whilst the tables told you how the adjustment calculation worked there has never been any justification for how the table values were determined.
Why were fixed categories used as the break points? Why is a 5 capper different to a 6 or 13? Why is a %age of 11-16% or 7-10% used. How were those figures determined?
I have never seen the table entries queried. Why not? Why should PCC be different?
		
Click to expand...

Regardless of how it was all done, it was reviewed and changed over the years, and certainly at our club you had a good guess on how the CSS would move, it worked well on a sliding scale. 

Now not only does it not work, but the authorities refuse to even tell you how it works.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			The authorities have probably done a massive amount of number crunching to determine the 'fine weather' expected scoring patterns [1] My feeling is that apart from a few qualified golfing mathematicians, golfers in general would not understand the algorithms involved and moreover would not be able to compare the model scoring with the actual on the the day.[2] Certainly not within 20 minutes.
The outcomes suggest that the algorithms need tweaking in order to match the CSS outcomes. But given that a large part of the world never used a CSS type process before I wonder if PCC is needed at all [3]. In area where the conditions are consistent - no effect. Where conditions are more variable - swings and roundabouts[4].
		
Click to expand...

[1] They clearly haven't
[2] Folks knew a bad day when they saw it, and usually expected a change in CSS to suit
[3] It's clearly needed in the parts of the world where it IS needed, Scotland particularly, rUK to a good degree also
[4] Ah the old it all evens out in the end football mistakes argument? Well if it's wrong it's wrong. If i rip off a tremendous round in appalling weather, but it misses my best 8, I should shrug my shoulders? It's not S&R, it goes against the accuracy claims they make for the new system


----------



## sweaty sock (Jan 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			How often was your perception different to the value of the CSS adjustment? Did it ever affect your play?

Whilst the tables told you how the adjustment calculation worked there has never been any justification for how the table values were determined.
Why were fixed categories used as the break points? Why is a 5 capper different to a 6 or 13? Why is a %age of 11-16% or 7-10% used. How were those figures determined?
I have never seen the table entries queried. Why not? Why should PCC be different?
		
Click to expand...

It was actually very useful, dont get me wrong, I'm an addict and would play no matter what the conditions, so it was always ( and will always be for me) just a matter of fact.  But knowing the css would more likely change due to a high proportion of cat 1 golfers etc, and being able to set expectations about where a buffer zone might end up really helped with the mental side in tough conditions.  

Currently I feel pcc is more opaque and less responsive.  But in reality, 2 shots on 10 percent of scores over a season, is hardly going to effect me.  Maybe my better rounds benefitted from a less reactive PCC, maybe as my handicsp os more sensitive to better scores im actually better off?  

Without a bit more clarity I'm not really sure...


----------



## IanM (Jan 7, 2022)

sweaty sock said:



			Without a bit more clarity I'm not really sure...
		
Click to expand...

And that in a nutshell is the problem.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 7, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Regardless of how it was all done, it was reviewed and changed over the years, and certainly at our club you had a good guess on how the CSS would move, it worked well on a sliding scale.

Now not only does it not work, but the authorities refuse to even tell you how it works.
		
Click to expand...

When I took over as h'cap sec some 20 years ago I manually calculated the CSS for a small field competition. I never bothered again. But I can't remember the tables or formulae being altered since. How often were they done in the last 20 years?
But surely that is exactly what CONGU is asking now. Is it working as intended? If not, why not? Should it be producing different results? Is it producing the results the world wants as opposed to GB&I?

If you knew how it works what difference would it make? Do you know how the numbers in the CSS tables were derived? Did your knowledge influence the changes you refer to?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			When I took over as h'cap sec some 20 years ago I manually calculated the CSS for a small field competition. I never bothered again. But I can't remember the tables or formulae being altered since. How often were they done in the last 20 years?
But surely that is exactly what CONGU is asking now. Is it working as intended? If not, why not? Should it be producing different results? Is it producing the results the world wants as opposed to GB&I?

If you knew how it works what difference would it make? Do you know how the numbers in the CSS tables were derived? Did your knowledge influence the changes you refer to?
		
Click to expand...

So many questions there.

From memory non-counting was a change, certainly changes to buffer zones for different categories wasd the biggest change, when launched it was 2 shots buffer for all. 

No CONGU haven't been asking, they (at least Scottish Golf) have repeatedly said it's working fine and meant to be less sensitive than CSS, now an about face due to sustained complaints. 

Finally "that's just how it is" may be fine for some, I'm sorry I like to understand why something has happened, the fact SG can't even show you the formula, and that in practice it's been awful; rather points to an issue eh?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 7, 2022)

IanM said:



			I've only had 3 months off work.... I wonder if I should write and offer my services?  Not to make any changes, but to help them explain to their customers!   Yes, customers.
		
Click to expand...

 Ah Ian, a man after my own heart. In Scotland with the launch of WHS, and their in-house back end VMS, and the SG App, they also launched a private forum that we could log into and ask questions. The arrogance thereafter has been incredible, obvious flaws are ignored, requests for bug fixes (their VMS isn't too clever at all) get ignored, new features get added but they don't bother to tell you.

And yes we're their customers, but they seem to think that because they have given us this for "free" (forgetting the thousands in subs we pay every year, historically for zero return) then they don't need to listen or respond. Their forum was actually running quite well in the early days, they were flooded with questions, they changed it so it's very hard to find any new comments by anyone and follow a topic (it's not like a normal forum), and that speaks volumes, I think they expected a huge pat on the back, instead they got flack from all sides.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I believe the PCC was lifted from Australia. I wonder if the PCC algorithm needs tuning to allow for the probably more variable weather and course conditions that prevail here.
		
Click to expand...

Really? You wonder? So after your comments above you've literally not even thought about this at all?


----------



## rulefan (Jan 7, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Really? You wonder? So after your comments above you've literally not even thought about this at all?
		
Click to expand...

You missed the point. My wondering was whether or not PCC could be geographically variable. I have no issue with the core being reviewed now that there is infinitely more real live data available. But one thing I haven't thought of is any future effects of climate change.

Incidentally my use of the word 'wonder' (to ask yourself questions, to speculate) implies I had thought about it.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 7, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			So many questions there.

From memory non-counting was a change, certainly changes to buffer zones for different categories wasd the biggest change, when launched it was 2 shots buffer for all.
		
Click to expand...

You didn't explain how the numbers in the CSS tables were derived. Without that how can anyone know the real accuracy of the resultant CSS.
A field of all 5 cappers may produce a different CSS to that of all 6 cappers. Why draw a line between 5 and 6?


----------



## Swango1980 (Jan 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			But factoring in a figure of about 70 (CR) has a far greater significance than a figure of about +/- 3 (CR-Par).

But how does that affect_ a golfer having a course handicap of 3 at one course and a course handicap of 7 at another course_.  Without Par being involved, CR alone doesn't make sense
		
Click to expand...

I think you are misinterpreting my use of the English language. When I say Course Rating is "factored" in, it was in the context of simply saying it was included within the calculation in the US. I was not making any indication as to how it was factored in (so factored was defined as "included" rather than the mathematical definition of multiplication).

So, the point I was making, a player if not going to play off 3 at one course (course handicap) and 7 at another in the UK, just by accounting for slope. This would only be true in another place of the world, such as the US, but only because they adjust for Course Rating (relative to par)


----------



## sunshine (Jan 7, 2022)

IanM said:



			Another symptom of the authorities not bothering to engage with golfers in the development of WHS.  The WHS Police needed to explain PCC as a concept, (they did) and give a working explanation of what you will expect to see and how to work it out. (approx)   Saying - "i_t's big -boys' maths, don't worry your wee head aboot it_" doesn't constitute adequate explanation or engagement.

I suspect that most golfers had a "perception/feel" of when CSS would change under the old system.  I also suspect that they expected a similar "feel" for changes to PCC.  Given the definition of it on the website I am sympathetic to that view.

So, when there are extensive occurrences where players "expected" (rightly or wrongly) a change (up or down) and one didn't happen, they question it.

It seems to me that the "rules folk" on here continually defend PCC as a process (hard to do as the maths isn't published ) and with some really unconnected explanations (see above) _without_  appreciating what club golfers are saying.

Gadzooks, the Original Post seems to say that they Authorities are starting to recognise the issue and are looking into it!!

BUT, it also says,_ Iain Forsyth, Scottish Golf’s chief commercial officer, feels that the response to WHS has been “pretty positive overall”.   _I wonder what he means by "overall?"

I've only had 3 months off work.... I wonder if I should write and offer my services?  Not to make any changes, but to help them explain to their customers!   Yes, customers.
		
Click to expand...

This is an excellent post. A " like" is not a sufficient acknowledgement.

England Golf and others have produced lots of superficial videos explaining the wonderful WHS, but any explanation is always dumbed down and missing the detail. That may be sufficient for the majority, but golf is quite an obsessive pastime and attracts the kind of people who want to know the technical details.

I note that none of the forum experts have yet provided an explanation of PCC.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 7, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			I think you are misinterpreting my use of the English language. When I say Course Rating is "factored" in, it was in the context of simply saying it was included within the calculation in the US. I was not making any indication as to how it was factored in (so factored was defined as "included" rather than the mathematical definition of multiplication).

So, the point I was making, a player if not going to play off 3 at one course (course handicap) and 7 at another in the UK, just by accounting for slope. This would only be true in another place of the world, such as the US, but only because they adjust for Course Rating (relative to par)
		
Click to expand...

Understand now


----------



## rulefan (Jan 7, 2022)

sunshine said:



			I note that none of the forum experts have yet provided an explanation of PCC.
		
Click to expand...

If you mean the detailed of the algorithm that is because no one has been given one. In the same way that no one has been given the details of how the CSS tables were derived.
At least the main authorities (R&A, USGA, CONGU, Oz) are consistent. But to be fair, the last time I asked EG they hadn't got the details either. I suspect that may be true of other national authorities.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			You didn't explain how the numbers in the CSS tables were derived. Without that how can anyone know the real accuracy of the resultant CSS.
A field of all 5 cappers may produce a different CSS to that of all 6 cappers. Why draw a line between 5 and 6?
		
Click to expand...

It could, but the lines were drawn around the categories, cat 1 has a 1 shot buffer, cat 2 has 2 etc. It least the logic was there. 

We couldn't know it was accurate to be fair, but you could usually have a good guess as you were out on the course how tough or normal a day it was.  Now we're in the dark entirely.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			You missed the point. *My wondering was whether or not PCC could be geographically variable.* I have no issue with the core being reviewed now that there is infinitely more real live data available. But one thing I haven't thought of is any future effects of climate change.

Incidentally my use of the word 'wonder' (to ask yourself questions, to speculate) implies I had thought about it.
		
Click to expand...

I don't see why not, there's all sorts of carve outs for different countries. From convos had with SG reps, it feels like what they've tried to do in CONGU is absolutely swallow the whole ethos and change as little as possible, even for eg when that other major point of disagreement - no winter period - is discussed.  "Can't be done, not part of WHS".  Then we find out that virtually every state in the USA has a winter period where no cards can be submitted, and over varying lengths and months. 

I feel in trying to be enthusiastic cheerleaders, they've taken the eye off the ball that they're supposed to be looking out for their members best interests


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			If you mean the detailed of the algorithm that is because no one has been given one.* In the same way that no one has been given the details of how the CSS tables were derived.*
At least the main authorities (R&A, USGA, CONGU, Oz) are consistent. But to be fair, the last time I asked EG they hadn't got the details either. I suspect that may be true of other national authorities.
		
Click to expand...

Those two things are not the same. We didn't know how the tables were drawn up, but we had the tables, and could manually work out the CSS if needs be. 

With PCC, we haven't even been given the tables, just a result. Remember your maths exams, show your workings!


----------



## BiMGuy (Jan 7, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			It could, but the lines were drawn around the categories, cat 1 has a 1 shot buffer, cat 2 has 2 etc. It least the logic was there.

We couldn't know it was accurate to be fair, but *you could usually have a good guess as you were out on the course how tough or normal a day it was*.  Now we're in the dark entirely.
		
Click to expand...

Why do you need to know? Do you not just go and try to shoot your best score?

I can honestly say I have never once thought about what it CSS would be whilst out playing.


----------



## IanM (Jan 7, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			I can honestly say I have never once thought about what it CSS would be whilst out playing.
		
Click to expand...


And I agree with you entirely.  The point I was making (and I am not sure if Rulefan missed this in his early stuff) was that *AFTER* playing, the chatter in the bar would be about whether CSS would go up for down as folk were interested if they had "buffered" or, if they played well, what their cut "might be."     That is different from the "handicap protectors" looking out the window on a rough day and saying "nuts to that, I'll stay indoors!" 

My perception is that I had a rough feeling whether to expect a CSS increase or not.... and was generally right.

Now, any correlation between suffering on the course due to conditions and a change in PCC seems harder to gauge.   I've played in a few events where the score have been low, the weather appalling and PCC is zero!

My gripe is not whether the maths is right or wrong, but that we used to have a rough idea about what might happen, now the replacement is a mystery.  When you ask about it the answers are inconclusive, off topic and even patronising.

The phrase "you don't need to know this" NEVER works when trying to get folk to embrace something new!


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 7, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			Why do you need to know? Do you not just go and try to shoot your best score?

I can honestly say I have never once thought about what it CSS would be whilst out playing.
		
Click to expand...

You're struggling, you know you're not in the frame that day, but you're trying to buffer. Every single round I'd be considering the buffer, I'd find not worrying about that a bit alien, in fact I put the loss of a firm target down to my early season struggles, as the goalposts have changed now. Kinda back on track at the end of the year as I got used to a new way of scoring


----------



## rulefan (Jan 7, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Those two things are not the same. We didn't know how the tables were drawn up, but we had the tables, and could manually work out the CSS if needs be.

With PCC, we haven't even been given the tables, just a result. Remember your maths exams, show your workings!
		
Click to expand...

The tables were provided because computers were few and far between and to all intents were redundant in the last few years. Have you ever known a handicap sec need to do a manual CSS calculation?

Further, who says that CSS is more 'right' or 'wrong' than CSS? Was CSS too extreme? Were low or high cappers treated less 'fairly' (whatever that is). It was never claimed to reproduce the CSS results. Players just accepted 'it is what it is'. If CSS had never existed surely that's what players would do now.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			The tables were provided because computers were few and far between and to all intents were redundant in the last few years. Have you ever known a handicap sec need to do a manual CSS calculation?

Further, who says that CSS is more 'right' or 'wrong' than CSS? Was CSS too extreme? Were low or high cappers treated less 'fairly' (whatever that is). It was never claimed to reproduce the CSS results. Players just accepted 'it is what it is'. If CSS had never existed surely that's what players would do now.
		
Click to expand...

CSS was fine until their last tinker, where they introduced a home and away CSS. Play the course, that's it. I play a lot of opens, I have no doubt it helped keep my handicap down because almost inevitably the away CSS was a shot higher than the home players, and usually 2. It was like upping the buffer from 1 or 2, to 3 or 4 (depending if I was Cat 1/2 at the time).


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Further, *who says that CSS is more 'right' or 'wrong' than CSS?* Was CSS too extreme? Were low or high cappers treated less 'fairly' (whatever that is). It was never claimed to reproduce the CSS results. Players just accepted 'it is what it is'. If CSS had never existed surely that's what players would do now.
		
Click to expand...

Assuming you actually mean PCC for the italicised bit, I'd suggest 'anyone with a bit of common sense'!


----------



## doublebogey7 (Jan 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			If you mean the detailed of the algorithm that is because no one has been given one. In the same way that no one has been given the details of how the CSS tables were derived.
At least the main authorities (R&A, USGA, CONGU, Oz) are consistent. But to be fair, the last time I asked EG they hadn't got the details either. I suspect that may be true of other national authorities.
		
Click to expand...

England golf must have a copy of the algorithm,  otherwise, they would not have been able to contract the software supplier for My EG to include it in the WHS calculations.


----------



## BiMGuy (Jan 7, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			You're struggling, you know you're not in the frame that day, but you're trying to buffer. Every single round I'd be considering the buffer, I'd find not worrying about that a bit alien, in fact I put the loss of a firm target down to my early season struggles, as the goalposts have changed now. Kinda back on track at the end of the year as I got used to a new way of scoring
		
Click to expand...

Sorry but that just doesn’t resonate with me. I try to shoot the best I can whatever. Like I said, I’ve never considered CSS, a buffer or such like whilst playing.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 7, 2022)

IanM said:



			And I agree with you entirely.  The point I was making (and I am not sure if Rulefan missed this in his early stuff) was that *AFTER* playing, the chatter in the bar would be about whether CSS would go up for down as folk were interested if they had "buffered" or, if they played well, what their cut "might be."     That is different from the "handicap protectors" looking out the window on a rough day and saying "nuts to that, I'll stay indoors!"

My perception is that I had a rough feeling whether to expect a CSS increase or not.... and was generally right.

Now, any correlation between suffering on the course due to conditions and a change in PCC seems harder to gauge.   I've played in a few events where the score have been low, the weather appalling and PCC is zero!

My gripe is not whether the maths is right or wrong, but that we used to have a rough idea about what might happen, now the replacement is a mystery.  When you ask about it the answers are inconclusive, off topic and even patronising.

The phrase "you don't need to know this" NEVER works when trying to get folk to embrace something new! 

Click to expand...

I take your point re AFTER but IMO the emphasis is wrong. It's really down to 'How did everyone else perform according to the expectations of the system?'
I agree that players have got used to how CSS reacts but is the problem that PCC is designed to have a different reaction and we have to get tuned to that?
Obviously I don't know.
As an aside, when refereeing (ie watching other more consistent players) I am able to predict the CSS outcome far better than when I am playing.


----------



## IanM (Jan 7, 2022)

You've missed my main point.


rulefan said:



			I agree that players have got used to how CSS reacts but is the problem that PCC is designed to have a different reaction and we have to get tuned to that?
Obviously I don't know.
		
Click to expand...

I do.  It's frustrating that the authorities didn't try.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 7, 2022)

IanM said:



			You've missed my main point.


I do.  It's frustrating that the authorities didn't try.
		
Click to expand...

The question is 'Who are the authorities?'
The bodies involved specifying the WHS were the USGA, R&A, Golf Australia, Argentina, South Africa, European Golf Association and CONGU. But the GB&I national unions were not directly involved in the formulation of the PCC algorithm.

The following relates to the Australian Daily Scratch Rating (DSR). The precursor to PCC. It was introduced in 2013 so had plenty of time to bed down and be tweaked if/as thought necessary.

"Under the new DSR system, we will assess a current course rating for you each day. This rating will be appropriate to the conditions you actually experienced. GOLF Link will do all of the work and publish the DSR immediately after the scores are processed."

"The formulas _(sic)_ used to assess the DSR are complex as our statisticians have advised that simple formula options are not efficient enough to produce reliable ratings – this was the problem with CCR.

Through GOLF Link, the DSR system will establish each of the following:
The average net score for a field.•• 
The average handicap of a field.••
The field size.••
The type of competition (Stableford, Par, or Stroke).••
The gender of the competitors.••

Once it has established each of these factors, GOLF Link will compare the ACTUAL average net score on the day with the average net score GOLF Link EXPECTS for this precise field composition. (The EXPECTED average is determined by GOLF Link from millions of prior rounds.) GOLF Link will then determine the DSR by using the difference between what ACTUALLY happened on the day and what was EXPECTED to happen.


----------



## IanM (Jan 7, 2022)

"The authorities" = any body who had any role in the design,  development and deployment of the WHS and associated changes..

No idea why you have posted the stuff in blue.  It is waffle about a predessor and proves what I have been saying.

We have an important feature in the management of handicapping that folk don't understand and can't explain. 

If it was only pcc that this could be leveled at, folk could probably live with it!


----------



## Imurg (Jan 7, 2022)

IanM said:



			"The authorities" = any body who had any role in the design,  development and deployment of the WHS and associated changes..

No idea why you have posted the stuff in blue.  It is waffle about a predessor and proves what I have been saying.

We have an important feature in the management of handicapping that was

1) Deployed without effective change management and communication.
And
2) No one appears to be able to explain it to club golfers
		
Click to expand...

I think you need to start a petition..


----------



## IanM (Jan 7, 2022)

Imurg said:



			I think you need to start a petition..

Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that lot really take feedback


----------



## rulefan (Jan 7, 2022)

IanM said:



			We have an important feature in the management of handicapping that folk don't understand and can't explain.
		
Click to expand...

Which applied to the development and content of the CSS tables. No one has explained how or why those values were assigned.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			The question is 'Who are the authorities?'
The bodies involved specifying the WHS were the USGA, R&A, Golf Australia, Argentina, South Africa, European Golf Association and CONGU. But the GB&I national unions were not directly involved in the formulation of the PCC algorithm.

The following relates to the Australian Daily Scratch Rating (DSR). *The precursor to PCC*. It was introduced in 2013 so had plenty of time to bed down and be tweaked if/as thought necessary.

"Under the new DSR system, we will assess a current course rating for you each day. This rating will be appropriate to the conditions you actually experienced. GOLF Link will do all of the work and publish the DSR immediately after the scores are processed."

"The formulas _(sic)_ used to assess the DSR are complex as our statisticians have advised that simple formula options are not efficient enough to produce reliable ratings – this was the problem with CCR.

Through GOLF Link, the DSR system will establish each of the following:
The average net score for a field.•• 
The average handicap of a field.••
The field size.••
The type of competition (Stableford, Par, or Stroke).••
The gender of the competitors.••

Once it has established each of these factors, GOLF Link will compare the ACTUAL average net score on the day with the average net score GOLF Link EXPECTS for this precise field composition. (The EXPECTED average is determined by GOLF Link from millions of prior rounds.) GOLF Link will then determine the DSR by using the difference between what ACTUALLY happened on the day and what was EXPECTED to happen.

Click to expand...

Yep. Another 'mess' the Aussies are responsible for (along with Djokovic and Ashes 2021/2)!
And, FWIW, It's WCA that's the precursor to PCC. DSR is SR - WCA as noted in this document https://www.statisticalsolutions.co...14643210/daily_scratch_rating_-_sept_2012.pdf


----------



## IanM (Jan 7, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Which applied to the development and content of the CSS tables. No one has explained how or why those values were assigned.
		
Click to expand...


I'm sorry if this appears a bit rude, but you haven't grasped what I've been saying at all. 

As I'm apparently incapable of explaining it to you, I'll stop trying.

The original post suggests someone in authority agrees and is starting an investigation.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 8, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			And, FWIW, It's WCA that's the precursor to PCC. DSR is SR - WCA as noted in this document https://www.statisticalsolutions.co...14643210/daily_scratch_rating_-_sept_2012.pdf

Click to expand...

Thanks for that link. I knew it was around somewhere but couldn't track it down. As you say WCA is the precursor to PCC. DSR is 'in effect' CSS.

An interesting point: 
*The Impact of DSR on Handicaps*
While the impact on handicaps is as expected, reducing an increase on a bad condition day, and reducing reduction on a good condition day, the impact is not as significant as may have first been thought. 

Assuming it is similar to or the same as PCC now, I wonder how many feel better off with this information.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 8, 2022)

IanM said:



			The original post suggests someone in authority agrees and is starting an investigation.
		
Click to expand...

And that is why I posted it in the first place.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 8, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Thanks for that link. I knew it was around somewhere but couldn't track it down. As you say WCA is the precursor to PCC. DSR is 'in effect' CSS.
...
		
Click to expand...

Correct.


rulefan said:



			...
An interesting point:
*The Impact of DSR on Handicaps*
While the impact on handicaps is as expected, reducing an increase on a bad condition day, and reducing reduction on a good condition day, *the impact is not as significant as may have first been thought*.

Assuming it is similar to or the same as PCC now, I wonder how many feel better off with this information.
		
Click to expand...

Agreed. But, scores that fall into the '12 not considered' apart, I'm puzzled as to, in reality, why that's the case. The supporting graphs also generally support that statement (for 90% of comps WCA is within +/-1 for most; 100% within +/-2) I'm not sure why. There _is_ a chart of 'weightings' that doesn't seem to be explained - or, at least, I don't understand, which may contribute.

I'm also not convinced scores on bad weather days should be bound for the 'not considered 12'. The purpose of WCA is, or at least should be, to 'normalise' good/bad conditions imo.


----------



## jim8flog (Jan 8, 2022)

At the end of the day if the conditions are so bad it warrants an upwards calculation *and *you are putting in plenty of scores it is hardly likely that that round will affect your Handicap Index even if it replaces a very low score because the very low score would have been affected anyway.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 8, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			At the end of the day if the conditions are so bad it warrants an upwards calculation *and *you are putting in plenty of scores it is hardly likely that that round will affect your Handicap Index even if it replaces a very low score because the very low score would have been affected anyway.
		
Click to expand...

A small number of people are still likely to beat their handicap on any given day, if you've done that on a horror of a day, that should be noted in your handicap adjustment with a suitable upward movement of PCC, but it's not, now nearly every day is the same.


----------



## rosecott (Jan 8, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			A small number of people are still likely to beat their handicap on any given day, if you've done that on a horror of a day, that should be noted in your handicap adjustment with a suitable upward movement of PCC, but it's not, now nearly every day is the same.
		
Click to expand...

As a matter of interest, - sorry if you have previously posted it - how many PCCs have there been at your place since WHS started.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 8, 2022)

rosecott said:



			As a matter of interest, - sorry if you have previously posted it - how many PCCs have there been at your place since WHS started.
		
Click to expand...

Surely there's a PCC every day there are sufficient scores (8?) registered.

Presumably, you mean 'a non-zero PCC'? Or even one >1?

Btw. I came across this document https://www.englandgolf.org/explaining-the-whs-playing-conditions-calculation/
It implies that PCC is not a direct replacement for CSS.


----------



## rosecott (Jan 8, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Surely there's a PCC every day there are sufficient scores (8?) registered.

Presumably, you mean 'a non-zero PCC'? Or even one >1?

Btw. I came across this document https://www.englandgolf.org/explaining-the-whs-playing-conditions-calculation/
It implies that PCC is not a direct replacement for CSS.
		
Click to expand...

Pedant alert.

PCC=0 being the norm, what else have we been discussing? The WHS PCC report shows only variations from the norm.


----------



## greenone (Jan 8, 2022)

rosecott said:



			As a matter of interest, - sorry if you have previously posted it - how many PCCs have there been at your place since WHS started.
		
Click to expand...

1 at ours.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 9, 2022)

rosecott said:



			As a matter of interest, - sorry if you have previously posted it - how many PCCs have there been at your place since WHS started.
		
Click to expand...

Zereo, not a single adjustment, through howling wind, to flat calm and hard running. 

I play a lot of opens also, they've bumped 3 times, but two of those were in fields with in one case only 3 home players, and the other with no home player sat all.


----------



## wjemather (Jan 9, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Zereo, not a single adjustment, through howling wind, to flat calm and hard running.
		
Click to expand...

But what was the scoring like in relation to what should be expected? _Your _perception of the weather and ground conditions, and how relatively difficult (or easy) those things made it for _you_, are totally irrelevant.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 9, 2022)

wjemather said:



			But what was the scoring like in relation to what should be expected? _Your _perception of the weather and ground conditions, and how relatively difficult (or easy) those things made it for _you_, are totally irrelevant.
		
Click to expand...

Don't be ridiculous, we  all know an easy and harder day when we see it, we see the scores coming in that back that up, yet not a single change. You think that's right? Honestly you're just trolling now.


----------



## greenone (Jan 9, 2022)

wjemather said:



			But what was the scoring like in relation to what should be expected? _Your _perception of the weather and ground conditions, and how relatively difficult (or easy) those things made it for _you_, are totally irrelevant.
		
Click to expand...

2nd round of club championship. 35mph winds, best score was 5 over par net, no pcc adjustment


----------



## rulefan (Jan 9, 2022)

greenone said:



			2nd round of club championship. 35mph winds, best score was 5 over par net, no pcc adjustment
		
Click to expand...

What was the Course Rating?


----------



## patricks148 (Jan 9, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Zereo, not a single adjustment, through howling wind, to flat calm and hard running.

I play a lot of opens also, they've bumped 3 times, but two of those were in fields with in one case only 3 home players, and the other with no home player sat all.
		
Click to expand...

I played 20 plus opens last year and the same club comps, only one adj  which was the lowest possible in 30 mph wind and lashing rain,  no scores close to handicap for those that teed off pm.


----------



## wjemather (Jan 9, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Don't be ridiculous, we  all know an easy and harder day when we see it, we see the scores coming in that back that up, yet not a single change. You think that's right? Honestly you're just trolling now.
		
Click to expand...

Really? Yet you provide zero evidence that the scoring on any of these days is significantly worse (or better) than should be expected. Alternatively, please tell us your system for consistent adjustments worldwide based on _your _perceptions.

(edit) Also, please refrain from tossing insults around.


----------



## wjemather (Jan 9, 2022)

greenone said:



			2nd round of club championship. 35mph winds, best score was 5 over par net, no pcc adjustment
		
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no assessment (on whether a PCC adjustment could reasonably be expected) can be made from this since par is irrelevant and all scores are taken into account, not just the best one.
To make a reasonable assessment, starting by approximating the proportion of players who returned scores within their expected range, we would need the same information as the system uses: everyone's adjusted gross scores (both comp & gp), handicaps and course/slope ratings.


----------



## rosecott (Jan 9, 2022)

greenone said:



			2nd round of club championship. 35mph winds, best score was 5 over par net, no pcc adjustment
		
Click to expand...

I don’t know you or which course you play, but I find that extremely difficult to believe. Perhaps you could tell us CR, par and slope.

From a midweek competition last month at our place (an unusually low field of only 22), the best score in Division 1 was 32 points by a 12 handicapper and, in Division 2, 34 and 35 points by 22 handicappers and 35 by a 26 handicapper.

CR = par and PCC was +3


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 9, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Really? Yet you provide zero evidence that the scoring on any of these days is significantly worse (or better) than should be expected. Alternatively, please tell us your system for consistent adjustments worldwide based on _your _perceptions.

(edit) Also, please refrain from tossing insults around.
		
Click to expand...

You've never actually played golf have you? You think the weather is the same every day? Or is it you think weather doesn't affect scoring? 

Stop trolling.


----------



## wjemather (Jan 9, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			You've never actually played golf have you? You think the weather is the same every day? Or is it you think weather doesn't affect scoring?

Stop trolling.
		
Click to expand...

Nice rant. I think you need to cool off, so I'll say bye for now.
However, if you do ever find some evidence to back up your opinions, please share.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 9, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Nice rant. I think you need to cool off, so I'll say bye for now.
However, if you do ever find some evidence to back up your opinions, please share.
		
Click to expand...

Rant? Goodness petal, you're sensitive.

You've been given the evidence, PCC doesn't change. CSS changed all the time. Ergo, new system not fit for purpose as Scottish Golf are admitting.

But I wouldn't worry about replying, you're always trolling so you're on ignore


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 9, 2022)

rosecott said:



			I don’t know you or which course you play, but I find that extremely difficult to believe. Perhaps you could tell us CR, par and slope.

From a midweek competition last month at our place (an unusually low field of only 22), the best score in Division 1 was 32 points by a 12 handicapper and, in Division 2, 34 and 35 points by 22 handicappers and 35 by a 26 handicapper.

CR = par and PCC was +3
		
Click to expand...

First I've ever seen where adjustment that high.
In fact, I can't rmember seeing an adjustment greater than 1!


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 9, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Rant? Goodness petal, you're sensitive.

You've been given the evidence, PCC doesn't change. CSS changed all the time.* Ergo, new system not fit for purpose as Scottish Golf are admitting.*
...
		
Click to expand...

Er...Please show where they've 'admitted' that!


----------



## wjemather (Jan 9, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Rant? Goodness petal, you're sensitive.

You've been given the evidence, PCC doesn't change. CSS changed all the time. Ergo, new system not fit for purpose as Scottish Golf are admitting.

But I wouldn't worry about replying, you're always trolling so you're on ignore 

Click to expand...

Your perceptions and opinions are not evidence.
You obviously just have some petty axe to grind with Scottish Golf, so are incapable of rational argument; you are also not assisted by by a failure to understand almost anything about handicapping, either UHS (and CSS) or WHS (and PCC).


----------



## jim8flog (Jan 9, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			A small number of people are still likely to beat their handicap on any given day, if you've done that on a horror of a day, that should be noted in your handicap adjustment with a suitable upward movement of PCC, but it's not, now nearly every day is the same.
		
Click to expand...

 yes but do the maths

Say without PCC it was 2 better than your worst score from the 8 = a change of 0.25 in a players index
Say with a 2 change in from the PCC that would make an additional 0.25 change

Is 0.25 really going to make that much difference? Maybe no change to some and maybe one shot to some.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 9, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			new system not fit for purpose as Scottish Golf are admitting.
		
Click to expand...

When and where did they say that? It certainly wasn't in the Golf Business article I linked to.


----------



## Backsticks (Jan 9, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			yes but do the maths

Say without PCC it was 2 better than your worst score from the 8 = a change of 0.25 in a players index
Say with a 2 change in from the PCC that would make an additional 0.25 change

Is 0.25 really going to make that much difference? Maybe no change to some and maybe one shot to some.
		
Click to expand...

I guess for those for whom it is one of their 8, that 0.25 would move a quarter of the field by 1 shot immediately, and maybe have an effect on others after subsequent rounds.
The probability of it being one of the 8 should be 8/20.

So overall, a PCC of 2 would likely move 5% of golfers handicaps by a shot ?


----------



## rosecott (Jan 9, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			First I've ever seen where adjustment that high.
In fact, I can't rmember seeing an adjustment greater than 1!
		
Click to expand...

Since the start of WHS we have had 235 "qualifiers":

3 @ -1
217 @ 0
9 @ +1
4 @ +2
2 @ +3


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 9, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Er...Please show where they've 'admitted' that!
		
Click to expand...

Further up the page Foxy, they're now looking to review it following so many complaints this year


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 9, 2022)

rulefan said:



			When and where did they say that? It certainly wasn't in the Golf Business article I linked to.
		
Click to expand...

That is absolutely an admission of guilt from a body who never does anything wrong


----------



## jim8flog (Jan 9, 2022)

Backsticks said:



*I guess for those for whom it is one of their 8, that 0.25 would move a quarter of the field by 1 shot immediately,*

Click to expand...

I do not know what the range it as you place but at ours the range is around x.6 to x.7 for Course Handicaps  to move by a full shot so a change of .25 is hardly likely to produce a change of one shot for many here. 

Also on such a day I would expect there to be very few to get a change anyway as it is likely that not many would play better than their handicap.


----------



## IanM (Jan 9, 2022)

rosecott said:



			Since the start of WHS we have had 235 "qualifiers":

3 @ -1
217 @ 0
9 @ +1
4 @ +2
2 @ +3
		
Click to expand...

Thats 8% where it hasn't been zero.

I wonder how the same period and qualifiers pre WHS would look on the old system ?


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 9, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Further up the page Foxy, they're now looking to review it following so many complaints this year
		
Click to expand...

Unless you can point me to somewhere where they actually 'admit' there IS a problem, I'd call 'Twaddle' on that post! 
Reviewing something is not an admission of a problem, simply a 'We'll look into' as we can see there's a concern!


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 9, 2022)

jim8flog said:



			I do not know what the range it as you place but at ours the range is around x.6 to x.7 for Course Handicaps  to move by a full shot so a change of .25 is hardly likely to produce a change of one shot for many here.
....
		
Click to expand...

It's simple arithmetic. A .25 increase/decrease in HI would likely cause 25% to increase/decrease Playing Handicap (actually slightly more/less as most courses Slope is greater than 113). 


jim8flog said:



			...Also on such a day I would expect there to be very few to get a change anyway as it is likely that not many would play better than their handicap.
		
Click to expand...

Doesn't really matter. Playing better than their handicap is irrelecant under WHS (though wasn't under Congu UHS). As long as it knocks a poorer score out of their 'best 8'. Oh and that 'poorer score' might be more than 1 poorer than the new one - so the effect on average score (therefore HI) would be greater!


----------



## rosecott (Jan 9, 2022)

IanM said:



			Thats 8% where it hasn't been zero.

I wonder how the same period and qualifiers pre WHS would look on the old system ?
		
Click to expand...

I'm tied up for a few days but will have a go on Thursday at digging out a comparable period from a couple of years ago


----------



## rulefan (Jan 9, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			That is absolutely an admission of guilt
		
Click to expand...

So “_That’s one of the calculations that is being looked at ..._” means "_we know it it is wrong_"

A real Lewis Carroll classic

*“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ *


----------



## IanM (Jan 9, 2022)

rosecott said:



			I'm tied up for a few days but will have a go on Thursday at digging out a comparable period from a couple of years ago
		
Click to expand...

Would be a really interesting comparison.

I suspect (from what I've seen at my club and chatter on here) there's a school of thought that thinks there's less "adjustment" under the new system.  That's my perception,  but I wonder if that's true?  

I also wonder if there was a desire to go one way or the other in the design of the new system?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 9, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Unless you can point me to somewhere where they actually 'admit' there IS a problem, I'd call 'Twaddle' on that post!
Reviewing something is not an admission of a problem, simply a 'We'll look into' as we can see there's a concern!
		
Click to expand...

I think you discount the arrogance of Scottish Golf. Their early season response to complaints was to fob everyone off with an arrogant "it's meant to be less sensitive than CSS, it's working fine". 

Those comments are absolutely an admission it's not working


----------



## IanM (Jan 9, 2022)

rulefan said:



			So “_That’s one of the calculations that is being looked at ..._” means "_we know it it is wrong_"

A real Lewis Carroll classic

*“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’ *

Click to expand...

Ok, but if there were "no issues or concerns" why would they be looking at it?    They must have had sufficient "enquiries " to prompt an action.

Or are they that bored?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 9, 2022)

rulefan said:



			So “_That’s one of the calculations that is being looked at ..._” means "_we know it it is wrong_"

A real Lewis Carroll classic

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.*’ *

Click to expand...

I refer you to my post above. Words matter.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 9, 2022)

IanM said:



			Ok, but if there were "no issues or concerns" why would they be looking at it?    They must have had sufficient "enquiries " to prompt an action.

Or are they that bored? 

Click to expand...

Shhhhhh, don't use critical thought on this forum


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 9, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			I think you discount the arrogance of Scottish Golf. Their early season response to complaints was to fob everyone off with an arrogant "it's meant to be less sensitive than CSS, it's working fine".

Those comments are absolutely an admission it's not working
		
Click to expand...

In your opinion!
And what you call 'their arrogant fob off' is exactly correct - as per the document I posted a link to some time bank. Now, WHY that's the case, I'm not certain and am happy for Scottish Golf to review.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 9, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			In your opinion!
And what you call 'their arrogant fob off' is exactly correct - as per the document I posted a link to some time bank. Now, WHY that's the case, I'm not certain and am happy for Scottish Golf to review.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it's my opinion, that's why I said it. Whereas you're saying they're reviewing it for no reason.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 9, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			.... Whereas you're saying they're reviewing it for no reason.
		
Click to expand...

Utter twaddle!


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 9, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Utter twaddle!
		
Click to expand...

"_Reviewing something is not an admission of a problem, simply a 'We'll look into' as we can see there's a concern! "_

I'm not followin your logic at all


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 9, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			"_Reviewing something is not an admission of a problem, simply a 'We'll look into' as we can see there's a concern! "_

I'm not followin your logic at all
		
Click to expand...

I'll try to help you understand....

'admission of a problem' means 'there IS a problem'
we can see there's a concern' means 'there MAY BE are problem', but does not mean 'there IS a problem'

If you can't understand the difference, there's no hope for you!


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 9, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			I'll try to help you understand....

'admission of a problem' means 'there IS a problem'
we can see there's a concern' means 'there MAY BE are problem', but does not mean 'there IS a problem'

If you can't understand the difference, there's no hope for you!
		
Click to expand...

Oh dear, again I refer you to SG, they never admit they're wrong till they can no longer attempt to hold back the sea. When they say something is a concern, they mean oh jesus effing christ what a mess this is


----------



## rulefan (Jan 10, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			I think you discount the arrogance of Scottish Golf. Their early season response to complaints was to fob everyone off with an arrogant "it's meant to be less sensitive than CSS, it's working fine".

Those comments are absolutely an admission it's not working
		
Click to expand...

If it is "meant to be less sensitive" and people are complaining "it is less sensitive" doesn't that suggest it is working as intended?


----------



## rulefan (Jan 10, 2022)

I have noticed that the countries which have previous experience of this process are not making any fuss.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			If it is "meant to be less sensitive" and people are complaining "it is less sensitive" doesn't that suggest it is working as intended?
		
Click to expand...

There CAN BE a difference between 'working as intended' and 'working as required'. And the difference and reasons for the difference DOES need to be investigated (reviewed). Whether any adjustment is subsequently needed depends on the result of the investigation - specifically, WHY it is 'meant to be less sensitive' than Congu UHS - which aims to 'normalise' every round.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			If it is "meant to be less sensitive" and people are complaining "it is less sensitive" doesn't that suggest it is working as intended?
		
Click to expand...

Yes, and which the vast majority find is not equitable, and has been worked out badly. Just because it's doing what they designed it to do, doesn't mean they've got it right





rulefan said:



			I have noticed that the countries which have previous experience of this process are not making any fuss.
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, USA & Oz where conditions don't vary very much, good grief Americans call a 5mph wind a windy day, they walk off if it rains. 

Conditions vary greatly in Scotland, CSS used to reflect that well, and predictably, now we have a system that is effectively useless


----------



## rulefan (Jan 10, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Indeed, USA & Oz where conditions don't vary very much, good grief Americans call a 5mph wind a windy day, they walk off if it rains.
		
Click to expand...

The USGA did not previously have such a system but the EGA did. A big range of weather conditions between Finland and Spain.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			The USGA did not previously have such a system but the EGA did. A big range of weather conditions between Finland and Spain.
		
Click to expand...

Pretty sure they don't run one PCC for every round on every course across the continent


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 10, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Pretty sure *they* don't run one PCC for every round on every course across the continent 

Click to expand...

Indeed 'they' don't!


----------



## jim8flog (Jan 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I have noticed that the countries which have previous experience of this process are not making any fuss.
		
Click to expand...

 I have not heard a single player make comment where I play and many of them still come up to me about their handicaps.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 10, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



Pretty sure they don't run one PCC for every round on every course across the continent 

Click to expand...

I'm certain they operate the same rules as Scotland.


----------



## rosecott (Jan 10, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Yes, and which the vast majority find is not equitable, and has been worked out badly. Just because it's doing what they designed it to do, doesn't mean they've got it right
		
Click to expand...

As another poster has suggested, it seems strange that you are talking in terms of vast majorities when some of us are not hearing a peep.


----------



## wjemather (Jan 10, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Yes, and which the vast majority find is not equitable, and has been worked out badly. Just because it's doing what they designed it to do, doesn't mean they've got it right
		
Click to expand...

Yet again, more outlandish claims without evidence. The vast majority simply do not know anything about PCC and don't care to - they will accept whatever it is and have no opinion on whether it's equitable or not (although I'm pretty sure you don't mean equitable here). And just because it doesn't do what _you _think it should, doesn't mean that it's wrong.



Banchory Buddha said:



			Indeed, USA & Oz where conditions don't vary very much, good grief Americans call a 5mph wind a windy day, they walk off if it rains.

Conditions vary greatly in Scotland, CSS used to reflect that well, and predictably, now we have a system that is effectively useless
		
Click to expand...

And more demonstrated lack of knowledge, this time of meteorology in the US and Australia. Anyway, WHS is used the world over in places where conditions vary just as much as they do in your tiny part of Scotland. Scotland (or GB&I) is not a special case.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I'm certain they operate the same rules as Scotland.
		
Click to expand...

Yes for each day on each course. What exactly was the point of saying Finland is different to Spain? The point is do conditions change dramatically intra-course?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 10, 2022)

rosecott said:



			As another poster has suggested, it seems strange that you are talking in terms of vast majorities when some of us are not hearing a peep.
		
Click to expand...

I literally do not believe that. Nobody is talking about PCC? 

OK, put another way then, how many are saying it's a great change? Then you've got your zero responses.


----------



## Imurg (Jan 10, 2022)

rosecott said:



			As another poster has suggested, it seems strange that you are talking in terms of vast majorities when some of us are not hearing a peep.
		
Click to expand...

To be fair...the article linked in the 1st post says there are mumbling about PCC and thats why they're going to look at it....


----------



## rosecott (Jan 10, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			I literally do not believe that. Nobody is talking about PCC?

OK, put another way then, how many are saying it's a great change? Then you've got your zero responses.
		
Click to expand...

You continue to demonstrate your inability to listen. Not one person has raised an issue about PCC in my patch. Oh, wait a minute, someone did ask me what the initials PCC stood for but he didn't want to discuss it any further.

And, no, no-one is saying it's a great change - they are saying nothing.


----------



## rosecott (Jan 10, 2022)

Imurg said:



			To be fair...the article linked in the 1st post says there are mumbling about PCC and thats why they're going to look at it....
		
Click to expand...

And we know who is doing the mumbling.


----------



## Imurg (Jan 10, 2022)

rosecott said:



			And we know who is doing the mumbling.
		
Click to expand...

Obviously more than 1 person unless that person has an awful lot of clout with the governing bodies....


----------



## Swango1980 (Jan 10, 2022)

rosecott said:



			You continue to demonstrate your inability to listen. Not one person has raised an issue about PCC in my patch. Oh, wait a minute, someone did ask me what the initials PCC stood for *but he didn't want to discuss it any further*.

And, no, no-one is saying it's a great change - they are saying nothing.
		
Click to expand...

That made me chuckle a little. I was imagining you giving him the answer, beginning to then explain what it was and that person stopping you immediately and saying "I have what I need, I do not wish to speak about this any further thanks"


----------



## rulefan (Jan 10, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Yes for each day on each course. What exactly was the point of saying Finland is different to Spain? The point is do conditions change dramatically intra-course?
		
Click to expand...

My Finnish contacts tell me that they do.


----------



## wjemather (Jan 10, 2022)

Imurg said:



			To be fair...the article linked in the 1st post says there are mumbling about PCC and thats why they're going to look at it....
		
Click to expand...

That isn't entirely accurate though. Taking the journalistic spin of the headline away, there is little more than confirmation that CONGU is doing exactly what they said they would do 18 months ago prior to implementation.

And all they can do (other than withdraw from WHS, which isn't going to happen) is take feedback from golfers, look into any concerns raised, and pass on their conclusions. Unless other authorities around the world have the same concerns and conclusions, it's very unlikely any changes will be made.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 10, 2022)

wjemather said:



			CONGU is doing exactly what they said they would do 18 months ago prior to implementation.
		
Click to expand...

As EG have said -
_As the WHS continues to settle in, the impact of PCC will be monitored around the world and, as part of a co-ordinated review process, it will be determined whether any changes are necessary in the future_


----------



## rosecott (Jan 10, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			That made me chuckle a little. I was imagining you giving him the answer, beginning to then explain what it was and that person stopping you immediately and saying "I have what I need, I do not wish to speak about this any further thanks"
		
Click to expand...

You must have been eavesdropping.


----------



## Imurg (Jan 10, 2022)

wjemather said:



			That isn't entirely accurate though. Taking the journalistic spin of the headline away, there is little more than confirmation that CONGU is doing exactly what they said they would do 18 months ago prior to implementation.

And all they can do (other than withdraw from WHS, which isn't going to happen) is take feedback from golfers, look into any concerns raised, and pass on their conclusions. Unless other authorities around the world have the same concerns and conclusions, it's very unlikely any changes will be made.
		
Click to expand...

"A lot of feedback we've had was about having a ridiculous wind or weather conditions that would have historically been the Competition Standard Scratch (CSS)adjustment and thats not been quite so prevalent under WHS"
Which part of "a lot of feedback" doesn't compute..?
If they'd had no feedback regarding PCC why would they be wasting time reviewing it.?


----------



## rosecott (Jan 10, 2022)

Imurg said:



			"A lot of feedback we've had was about having a ridiculous wind or weather conditions that would have historically been the Competition Standard Scratch (CSS)adjustment and thats not been quite so prevalent under WHS"
Which part of "a lot of feedback" doesn't compute..?
If they'd had no feedback regarding PCC why would they be wasting time reviewing it.?
		
Click to expand...

Because a review of how WHS as a whole was working was always on the cards. You have to put in context that the OP was based only on comments from SGU officials.

Weather conditions and ridiculous wind did not automatically result in CSS changes - only the scores did that. Anyway, I thought you had taken an oath never to mention CSS?


----------



## wjemather (Jan 10, 2022)

Imurg said:



			"A lot of feedback we've had was about having a ridiculous wind or weather conditions that would have historically been the Competition Standard Scratch (CSS)adjustment and thats not been quite so prevalent under WHS"
If they'd had no feedback regarding PCC why would they be wasting time reviewing it.?
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you read my post correctly as I did not say they had no feedback; quite the opposite, in fact.

Anyway, the point is, they are not doing anything they hadn't already said they would do, and it is just "one of the calculations that is being looked at through CONGU" (even if PCC is a described as a "key thing" by SG's COO). This isn't some epiphany or admittance of a great injustice that some seem to think it is. It is merely a routine part of the implementation and review process.


----------



## rosecott (Jan 10, 2022)

From England Golf:


On days when the conditions are perceived to be difficult but there is no adjustment for PCC, this will be because a significant number of players have scored within their expected range
It is not just weather that can cause scores to be higher or lower than expected, as course conditions and course set up also play a key role and can contribute to a PCC adjustment (or lack of it)
Players are not expected to play to their handicap every time they go out, and this is reflected in the player’s expected scoring range that is used for the PCC


As the WHS continues to settle in, the impact of PCC will be monitored around the world and, as part of a co-ordinated review process, it will be determined whether any changes are necessary in the future


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 10, 2022)

rosecott said:



			From England Golf:


On days when the conditions are perceived to be difficult but there is no adjustment for PCC, this will be because a significant number of players have scored within their expected range
It is not just weather that can cause scores to be higher or lower than expected, as course conditions and course set up also play a key role and can contribute to a PCC adjustment (or lack of it)
Players are not expected to play to their handicap every time they go out, and this is reflected in the player’s expected scoring range that is used for the PCC


As the WHS continues to settle in, the impact of PCC will be monitored around the world and, as part of a co-ordinated review process, it will be determined whether any changes are necessary in the future


Click to expand...

All of these points applied just as equally to CSS, and we knew that. Nobody is arguing with what is taken into account, it's the lack of sensitivity that is the issue, and causing PCC to remain static almost all the time whereas CSS would have bene moving


----------



## wjemather (Jan 10, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			All of these points applied just as equally to CSS, and we knew that. Nobody is arguing with what is taken into account, it's the lack of sensitivity that is the issue, and causing PCC to remain static almost all the time whereas CSS would have bene moving
		
Click to expand...

They are similar (could possibly be considered the same) concepts, but they do not apply equally.
A couple of the more significant differences being that CSS did not account for Slope (which is a stroke or two, or more, for most players at most courses), and buffer zones meant scoring ranges were narrower and at the better end of what should actually be expected.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 10, 2022)

wjemather said:



			They are similar (could possibly be considered the same) concepts, but they do not apply equally.
A couple of the more significant differences being that CSS did not account for Slope (which is a stroke or two, or more, for most players at most courses), and the buffer zones meant scoring ranges were narrower and at the better end of what should actually be expected.
		
Click to expand...

I wouldn't associate Slope with CSS. Two different attributes imo. Certainly one changes according to handicap while the other doesn't. Buffer zone perhaps 'slope-ish' perhaps, but also unlikely.


----------



## wjemather (Jan 10, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			I wouldn't associate Slope with CSS. Two different attributes imo. Certainly one changes according to handicap while the other doesn't. Buffer zone perhaps 'slope-ish' perhaps, but also unlikely.
		
Click to expand...

I'm going to over-simplify things somewhat here, but it would be extremely involved otherwise...

Take an average course of average Slope (about 125). By simply adopting Slope (edit: under UHS), play-to-handicap score and buffer become a stroke or more higher for most golfers. This naturally results in an increase in the proportion of scores in or better than buffer, and consequentially, a reduction in the number and frequency of upward CSS adjustments.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 10, 2022)

wjemather said:



			I'm going to over-simplify things somewhat here, but it would be extremely involved otherwise...

Take an average course of average Slope (about 125). By simply adopting Slope, play-to-handicap score and buffer become a stroke or more higher for most golfers. This naturally results in an increase in the proportion of scores in or better than buffer, and consequentially, a reduction in the number and frequency of upward CSS adjustments.
		
Click to expand...

Buffer?? No such thing in WHS. And significantly against both the concept of WHS (Scratch vs Bogey oriented) and what PCC is all about. Still doesn't ovrcome the apparent shrinkage of PCC +2 or more vs CSS.


----------



## wjemather (Jan 10, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Buffer?? No such thing in WHS. And significantly against both the concept of WHS (Scratch vs Bogey oriented) and what PCC is all about. Still doesn't ovrcome the apparent shrinkage of PCC +2 or more vs CSS.
		
Click to expand...

We're at cross-purposes (previous post edited for clarity). I was attempting to illustrate the potential effect of adopting Slope under UHS; the purpose being to highlight that Slope plays a significant part of the reduction in adjustments that have been seen under WHS.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 10, 2022)

wjemather said:



			We're at cross-purposes (previous post edited for clarity). I was attempting to illustrate the potential effect of adopting Slope under UHS; the purpose being to highlight that Slope plays a significant part of the reduction in adjustments that have been seen under WHS.
		
Click to expand...

Ah, I see.
But I'm not convinced it does/would. Slope, alone.gives same 'expectation' of scores irrespective of conditions. So if there's an adjustment reqd, it's a separate calc. If anything, I believe it's related to the bunch of parms and weightings, that I alluded to in a post, with link, about WCA a couple of days ago. Their purpose/calc were not explained.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 10, 2022)

Jut playing around but

Under UHS a field of 18 cappers are playing a CR/SSS 72 course and all take 94 stokes. Would there be a CSS adjustment? If so what?
Under WHS scoring with their CHs now 21, would there be a PCC adjustment?


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Jut playing around but

Under UHS a field of 18 cappers are playing a CR/SSS 72 course and all take 94 stokes. Would there be a CSS adjustment? If so what?
Under WHS scoring with their CHs now 21, would there be a PCC adjustment?
		
Click to expand...


And indicates there's likely to be something in what @wjemather mentioned a few posts ago!


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Jut playing around but

Under UHS a field of 18 cappers are playing a CR/SSS 72 course and all take 94 stokes. Would there be a CSS adjustment? If so what?
Under WHS scoring with their CHs now 21, would there be a PCC adjustment?
		
Click to expand...

What's their adjusted scores?


----------



## rulefan (Jan 10, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			What's their adjusted scores?
		
Click to expand...

All 94 stokes were 'talent strokes'; no penalties nor NDB


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 10, 2022)

Not knowing the precise calculation, and for a slightly manufactured set of results, it's difficult to say whether there'd be a different PCC adjustment to the (1?, perhaps 2?) CSS on the (Slope 132?) WHS one (0 or -1?).
But seems to demonstrate HOW PCC could be different from CSS adjustment - and how Slope could be the cause.
It will, indeed, be interesting to see what the results of the SG 'analysis' is. I certainly hope they show some of the results and comparisons.


----------



## rosecott (Jan 10, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Not knowing the precise calculation, and for a slightly manufactured set of results, it's difficult to say whether there'd be a different PCC adjustment to the (1?, perhaps 2?) CSS on the (Slope 132?) WHS one (0 or -1?).
But seems to demonstrate HOW PCC could be different from CSS adjustment - and how Slope could be the cause.
It will, indeed, be interesting to see what the results of the SG 'analysis' is. I certainly hope they show some of the results and comparisons.
		
Click to expand...

Surely there will not be an SG analysis?

That must be the job of CONGU.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 10, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Not knowing the precise calculation, and for a slightly manufactured set of results, it's difficult to say whether there'd be a different PCC adjustment to the (1?, perhaps 2?) CSS on the (Slope 132?) WHS one (0 or -1?).
But seems to demonstrate HOW PCC could be different from CSS adjustment - and how Slope could be the cause.
It will, indeed, be interesting to see what the results of the SG 'analysis' is. I certainly hope they show some of the results and comparisons.
		
Click to expand...

Yes. It was contrived to indicate a point.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 10, 2022)

rosecott said:



			Surely there will not be an SG analysis?

That must be the job of CONGU.
		
Click to expand...

Probably, but perhaps instigated by SG as that's where the current fuss seems to be coming from.
Of course, Congu might say 'no need', which would be a little disappointing, as there _should_ be some sort of check to confirm that it's working as required - and to placate/demonstrate to those that think it isn't. I'm not sure whether the loud, distrusting voices, such as one on here are likely to accept anything other than a 'direct comparison' though.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 10, 2022)

As mentioned a couple of times already, EG have indicated that it was planned to review it anyway.


----------



## IanMcC (Jan 10, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Jut playing around but

Under UHS a field of 18 cappers are playing a CR/SSS 72 course and all take 94 stokes. Would there be a CSS adjustment? If so what?
Under WHS scoring with their CHs now 21, would there be a PCC adjustment?
		
Click to expand...

Of course there wouldn't, because there never is. Our data is attached for the whole period post WHS. All of the non zero adjustments are for Ladies comps. None for the men; snow rain mud hail wind frost ice and sun don't seem to matter. 
I'm not saying its right or wrong.
I'm just saying, as I have done since WHS changeover day, that we should be given the formulae.

Its obviously broken, as the authorities seem to admit. Maybe if they threw open the formulae to the masses, they could be told why its broken.
Then we wouldn't need 10 pages of bull jobby!!


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 11, 2022)

rulefan said:



			All 94 stokes were 'talent strokes'; no penalties nor NDB
		
Click to expand...

CSS - Well they've all missed buffer shooting nett 76, so I'd imagine it would be a RO day

PCC - who knows what will happen, we don't know how PCC is worked out


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 11, 2022)

rulefan said:



			As mentioned a couple of times already, EG have indicated that it was planned to review it anyway.
		
Click to expand...

As mentioned already, Scottish Golf said there were no plans to review anything, it was working as intended.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 11, 2022)

IanMcC said:



			I'm just saying, as I have done since WHS changeover day, that we should be given the formulae.
		
Click to expand...

And would you be able to make a useful contribution to why it does or doesn't do what it was intended? Are you a mathematician?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 11, 2022)

rulefan said:



			And would you be able to make a useful contribution to why it does or doesn't do what it was intended? Are you a mathematician?
		
Click to expand...

OMG. You're still arguing about an argument no-one is making. As far as anyone can tell (cos we don't know how it works) it is working as INTENDED

What it isn't doing is working as it SHOULD

The argument everyone is making ~ SHOULD ~ is why there is now going to be a review, when before SG had insisted everything was fine, nothing to see here.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 11, 2022)

It is now apparent that the PCC sensitivity level was intended. It emerges from elsewhere that the the CBA (ie European system) and PCC were designed to have different frequencies, with the CBA being about twice as likely to lead to adjustments than the PCC. The methodology for CSS and CBA is different but my impression from comments here and elsewhere is that CSS was probably more likely to lead to adjustments that CBA. 
The issue seems to be more about why than how.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 11, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			OMG. You're still arguing about an argument no-one is making. As far as anyone can tell (cos we don't know how it works) it is working as INTENDED

What it isn't doing is working as it SHOULD

The argument everyone is making ~ SHOULD ~ is why there is now going to be a review, when before SG had insisted everything was fine, nothing to see here.
		
Click to expand...

I was responding to a comment about the HOW.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 11, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I was responding to a comment about the HOW.
		
Click to expand...

You've been responding the same throughout, despite everyone saying it's the *SHOULD* that has had folks howling about it being broken.

"Are you a mathematician" ~ bit sneery don't you think? If we were given the formula, pretty sure any of us can then plug in the figures, find out if it works - I imagine it absolutely does - and then determine that it isn;t fit for purpose.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 11, 2022)

rulefan said:



*It is now apparent that the PCC sensitivity level was intended.* It emerges from elsewhere that the the CBA (ie European system) and PCC were designed to have different frequencies, with the CBA being about twice as likely to lead to adjustments than the PCC. The methodology for CSS and CBA is different but my impression from comments here and elsewhere is that CSS was probably more likely to lead to adjustments that CBA.
The issue seems to be more about why than how.
		
Click to expand...

That's been apparent since May when SG said there was nothing to see here, and it was intended to be less sensitive in their won words. Every man and his dog has told them it isn't working, it rarely moves.  If this is you finally catching up to the rest of this topic, bravo.


----------



## Swango1980 (Jan 11, 2022)

This is like watching the longest rally in tennis everywhere, where it is simply the same back and forth arguments. And, ultimately, I don't see any of us can give a response with any certainty? None of us know how it works. So, unless there is anyone here that works directly with WHS, or maybe even developed the PCC calculation themselves, it would be wise to caveat your answers carefully.

For those that say it doesn't work, it is true that we cannot say that for sure as we've never been told in detail how it should work. However, it is still an acceptable question. After all, we are told it is to account for tricky / easy course conditions (usually a result of the weather). CSS did this previously. It is pretty clear to most of us PCC changes much less frequently than CSS did, and there are plenty of examples where it is surprising that PCC has not changed. Therefore, it is only right that golfers who use the system can at least strongly ask the question of the authorities if they find it confusing. It is not fair to simply dismiss their argument because they are not a mathematician and do not know how it works. If my car seems to struggle to accelerate, or consumes fuel quicker than I'd expect, I'd take it to a mechanic to investigate, and hopefully fix, if my hunch was correct that everything was not well (or, they might even tell me that there is nothing wrong, it is just what my car does). I'd be pretty angry if I was told "are you a mechanic? No? Well stop complaining".

On the other hand, for those that strongly defend PCC, how can you be so certain it IS working as intended? It is true that it is probably the people that developed the system have looked into this more than the average golfer. However, that does not mean every single aspect of the system has been extensively researched, and maybe PCC was one of those things? It could have been developed by a single person, or a small team, and seemed OK to apply to the system after they did their work. They might have even analysed thousands of scores, but they could analyse all the scores in the world and still get a less than adequate outcome if any of their assumptions were a little out in developing the formula. So, it would seem logical that there is potential for many features to be tweaked over the coming years within the WHS system, unless we assume that they've developed the perfect system right from the outset (which is doubtful, especially as many worldwide handicap authorities still apply it differently).


----------



## BiMGuy (Jan 11, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			OMG. You're still arguing about an argument no-one is making. As far as anyone can tell (cos we don't know how it works) it is working as INTENDED

What it isn't doing is working as it SHOULD

The argument everyone is making ~ SHOULD ~ is why there is now going to be a review, when before SG had insisted everything was fine, nothing to see here.
		
Click to expand...

Where do you get the assertion that everyone is making an argument against PCC. As far as I can tell there are very few people who ever give it a thought, never mind care enough to want to know how it works or argue about it. And the few that do seem to be to ones who didn’t want a change from the old system.

I’ve honestly not played with anyone who has mentioned PCC, and I play somewhere where the wind can be brutal and make scoring very difficult.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 11, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			That's been apparent since May when SG said there was nothing to see here, and it was intended to be less sensitive in their won words. Every man and his dog has told them *it isn't working*, _it rarely moves_.  If this is you finally catching up to the rest of this topic, bravo.
		
Click to expand...

Re the italicised bit...maybe, though Rosecott's list shows that it does on occasions.
Re the bold bit... that's yet to be determined. But Rulefan's, admittedly contrived, example certainly suggests that making a direct/simple comparison is wrong.
The 'it's wrong and needs changing' folk don't seem to have considered that any really bad results that may be caused by the conditions are simply more likely to have no effect under WHS because they are likely to be one of the 12 discarded scores.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 11, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



*All of these points applied just as equally to CSS*, and we knew that. Nobody is arguing with what is taken into account, it's the lack of sensitivity that is the issue, and causing PCC to remain static almost all the time whereas CSS would have bene moving
		
Click to expand...


_On days when the conditions are perceived to be difficult but there is no adjustment for PCC, *this will be because a significant number of players have scored within their expected range*_
_It is not just weather that can cause scores to be higher or lower than expected, as course conditions and course set up also play a key role and can contribute to a PCC adjustment (or lack of it)_
_Players are not expected to play to their handicap every time they go out, and *this is reflected in the player’s expected scoring range that is used for the PCC*_
Just reviewing this thread. My understanding is that the player's 'expected scoring range' was not a function of CSS. CSS only considered the %age of players in a handicap range (category).


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 11, 2022)

rulefan said:



			...
Just reviewing this thread. My understanding is that the player's 'expected scoring range' was not a function of CSS. CSS only considered the %age of players in a handicap range (category).* Wouldn't this suggest that PCC is more sensitive?*

Click to expand...

I don't believe so, but it doesn't matter.
What is indicated is that it cannot/should not be directly/simply equated to CSS.


----------



## Imurg (Jan 11, 2022)

Do we know how the "expected score" is derived? 

And also what it actually is?

My scoring, in the last couple of months has ranged from 72 to 91 on a CR on 70.1 and a slope of 135..
What's my "expected score"?


----------



## rulefan (Jan 11, 2022)

Imurg said:



			Do we know how the "expected score" is derived?

And also what it actually is?

My scoring, in the last couple of months has ranged from 72 to 91 on a CR on 70.1 and a slope of 135..
What's my "expected score"?
		
Click to expand...

Your 'expected scoring range' will probably be between 72 to 91    or even 65 to 95  

But the PCC is only interested in the %age of players who play within their range.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 11, 2022)

rulefan said:




_On days when the conditions are perceived to be difficult but there is no adjustment for PCC, *this will be because a significant number of players have scored within their expected range*_
_It is not just weather that can cause scores to be higher or lower than expected, as course conditions and course set up also play a key role and can contribute to a PCC adjustment (or lack of it)_
_Players are not expected to play to their handicap every time they go out, and *this is reflected in the player’s expected scoring range that is used for the PCC*_
Just reviewing this thread. My understanding is that the player's 'expected scoring range' was not a function of CSS. CSS only considered the %age of players in a handicap range (category).
		
Click to expand...

1. The old "scoring range" was hitting buffer or better
2. Yup, same again
3. Yup, buffer scores helped reduce/increase CSS, now "expected range" helps keep PCC static.

So all points apply equally to CSS/PCC as I'd just said to you, the wording is different, and what those scores are are different, but it comes down to the same, Scores/Weather/Playing Conditions


----------



## wjemather (Jan 11, 2022)

Imurg said:



			Do we know how the "expected score" is derived?

And also what it actually is?

My scoring, in the last couple of months has ranged from 72 to 91 on a CR on 70.1 and a slope of 135..
What's my "expected score"?
		
Click to expand...

Yes. We do not have the specifics, but we do know the methodology because it's in the rulebook.

And no. Without the necessary data and statistical analysis (which has not been published), and the expected range and adjustment boundary parameters (also not published) we cannot do the calculations for ourselves, although I cannot imagine why anyone would want to, so cannot know what any given expected range is or manually calculate PCC.

The methodology:
First a standard deviation of scores for each individual on the course being played is calculated; the expected range of scores for each is (presumably) the median _x_% of this. PCC is then assessed by calculating the proportion of returned scores within/better/worse than the expected ranges; and looking up what the adjustment should be.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 11, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Your 'expected scoring range' will probably be between 72 to 91    or even 65 to 95  

Click to expand...

Exactly, you've no idea because it's a big secret, so we don't know if it works as expected, but we do know it almost never changes, and therefore isn't working as it SHOULD


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 11, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			Where do you get the assertion that everyone is making an argument against PCC. As far as I can tell there are very few people who ever give it a thought, never mind care enough to want to know how it works or argue about it. And the few that do seem to be to ones who didn’t want a change from the old system.

I’ve honestly not played with anyone who has mentioned PCC, and I play somewhere where the wind can be brutal and make scoring very difficult.
		
Click to expand...

I guess in Scotland we take more interest then, it's been a pretty hot topic at our club and anytime I'm out at Opens. Maybe change your 4-ball and speak to others?


----------



## wjemather (Jan 11, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			1. The old "scoring range" was hitting buffer or better
2. Yup, same again
3. Yup, buffer scores helped reduce CSS, now "expected range" helps keep PCC static.

So all points apply equally to CSS/PCC as I'd just said to you, the wording is different, and what those scores are are different, but it comes down to the same, Scores/Weather/Playing Conditions
		
Click to expand...

However, buffer was not an "expected" scoring range.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 11, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Yes. We do not have the specifics, but we do know the methodology because it's in the rulebook.

And no. Without the necessary data and statistical analysis (which has not been published), and the expected range and adjustment boundary parameters (also not published) we cannot do the calculations for ourselves, although I cannot imagine why anyone would want to, so cannot know what any given expected range is or manually calculate PCC.

The methodology:
First a standard deviation of scores for each individual on the course being played is calculated; the expected range of scores for each is (presumably) the median _x_% of this. PCC is then assessed by calculating the proportion of returned scores within/better/worse than the expected ranges; and looking up what the adjustment should be.
		
Click to expand...

Further, we do not know the expected scoring range(s) for all the other players.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 11, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			...
*So all points apply equally to CSS/PCC* as I'd just said to you, the wording is different, and what those scores are are different, but it comes down to the same, Scores/Weather/Playing Conditions
		
Click to expand...

I disagree!
Under UHS, *every* score counts.
Under WHS, *only the* *best 40% (of last 20)* count.
Attempting to equate every comp was important under UHS. Under WHS, it's far less important.


----------



## BiMGuy (Jan 11, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			I guess in Scotland we take more interest then, it's been a pretty hot topic at our club and anytime I'm out at Opens. Maybe change your 4-ball and speak to others?
		
Click to expand...

I don’t have a 4 ball. I only know one other member and my son to play with regularly. Every other time I play it’s with different people. 

Maybe down here we just play golf to enjoy it, rather than looking for something else to be grumpy about, and try to shoot the best we can without needing to know what to score to manage our HI.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 11, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			... it's been a pretty hot topic at our club and anytime I'm out at Opens....
		
Click to expand...

Quelle surprise!


----------



## rulefan (Jan 11, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Quelle surprise!

Click to expand...

I wonder who initiates the topic?


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 11, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Further, we do not know the expected scoring range(s) for all the other players.
		
Click to expand...

Yes again, we know, that's the point, it's all a mystery


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 11, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I wonder who initiates the topic?
		
Click to expand...


It's a mystery


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 11, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			I don’t have a 4 ball. I only know one other member and my son to play with regularly. Every other time I play it’s with different people.

Maybe down here we just play golf to enjoy it, rather than looking for something else to be grumpy about, and try to shoot the best we can without needing to know what to score to manage our HI.
		
Click to expand...

I'm competitive, we have quite a small core of playing members, on the whole very competitive, to the extent we had to have a meeting to diiscuss the comings and goings of WHS this year just a couple months back. 

Then playing Opens you're really playing with like minded pretty competitive folks, and obviously come across another tranche during inter-club matches, so yeah I imagine we have different triggers for enjoyment.

It begs the question why you're making so many comments on this topic when it doesn't bother you?


----------



## IanM (Jan 11, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			I guess_ in Scotland we take more interest then,_ it's been a pretty hot topic at our club and anytime I'm out at Opens. Maybe change your 4-ball and speak to others?
		
Click to expand...

I am not so sure, it is a standard remark at our club about "crikey what has to happen before PCC goes up??"   Then there's usually remarks about Alien Invasion, Earthquakes etc...."  All in good humour though. 

I am now expecting detailed explanation of how failing to compete your round "due to being vaporised by death ray" impacted both CSS and PCC!


----------



## BiMGuy (Jan 11, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			I'm competitive, we have quite a small core of playing members, on the whole very competitive, to the extent we had to have a meeting to diiscuss the comings and goings of WHS this year just a couple months back.

Then playing Opens you're really playing with like minded pretty competitive folks, and obviously come across another tranche during inter-club matches, so yeah I imagine we have different triggers for enjoyment.

It begs the question why you're making so many comments on this topic when it doesn't bother you?
		
Click to expand...

Brilliant. That sounds like the makings of a Little Britain sketch.

I played in a fair few club comps and some opens last year. Not once was PCC mentioned. I presume you are the instigator of these conversations? 

The more complaints I read about WHS on here the more I’m convinced that some don’t like it because they can’t figure out how to manage their handicap like they used to. 

I’m not really sure what being very competitive has to do with anything. Statements like that just reinforce my opinion above.
Maybe I’m not competitive enough to understand 🤷🏼‍♂️


----------



## rulefan (Jan 11, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			It's a mystery
		
Click to expand...

You should take more note of the context. But I'm sure you really understood that I was referring to posts #205 and #210.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 11, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			I'm competitive, we have quite a small core of playing members, on the whole very competitive, to the extent we had to have a meeting to diiscuss the comings and goings of WHS this year just a couple months back.
...
		
Click to expand...

Being 'competitive' has very little to do with whether WHS works 'as required'!
Here's a document that might assist https://archive.golf.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/00012871-source.pdf
Note also that GA states here that PCC formulae are 'quite conservative'. https://www.golf.org.au/whs/
I expect it'll be extremely difficult to convince any single administrative body to change the calculation! It wouldn't be a 'WHS' if they did!
My expectation is that, irrespective of whether an actual review is undertaken, the answer will be along the lines of 'working as required; go away'! It is, after all the latest calculation and is used specifically for WHS. The CSS calc was specific to the Congu and is therefore irrelevant to WHS.


----------



## wjemather (Jan 11, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Further, we do not know the expected scoring range(s) for all the other players.
		
Click to expand...

However we do know that, on average, approximately 20% of the most recent 20 scores will be better than handicap (HI is best 8 from 20, so on average 4 will be higher and 4 lower); in other words 80% will be worse than handicap. We can therefore deduce that in order for "playing to handicap" to be included in the expected scoring range, it would need to cover the median 60% (of the standard deviation) as a minimum. As a result it would cover scores that are substantially worse than handicap; even for a fairly consistent scratch golfer this would include scores of 3 or 4 over handicap, and for bogey golfers it would include scores of 6 or more over handicap.

All this is only theorising of course (and based on a little analysis of returned scores from players of various handicaps), but assuming the expected range is based on median %, it's clear that it would not have to be extended by very much to include much higher scores. Of course the expected range could be offset (e.g. 15% lower, 60% exp. range, 25% higher), but that would seem to defeat the purpose.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 11, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Indeed, USA & *Oz* where conditions don't vary very much,
		
Click to expand...

From Golf Australia.

With the vast majority of Australia’s golfers playing in coastal cities that are prone to variable weather conditions, it is particularly important for Australia to have a handicap system that is sufficiently flexible to cater for daily movements in playing conditions. If we don’t, we end up processing scores against inaccurate ratings, and that makes handicaps inaccurate.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 11, 2022)

Imurg said:



			Do we know how the "expected score" is derived?

And also what it actually is?

My scoring, in the last couple of months has ranged from 72 to 91 on a CR on 70.1 and a slope of 135..
What's my "expected score"?
		
Click to expand...

Not enough info!. You'd need to specify all of them to get a more accurate 'expected score' If, for example there were 15 scores of which 14 was 72 and the other 1 was 91, your expected score would be closer to 72 than if the other way round, so closer to 91!


----------



## Swango1980 (Jan 11, 2022)

rulefan said:



			From Golf Australia.

With the vast majority of Australia’s golfers playing in coastal cities that are prone to variable weather conditions, *it is particularly important for Australia to have a handicap system that is sufficiently flexible to cater for daily movements in playing conditions.* If we don’t, we end up processing scores against inaccurate ratings, and that makes handicaps inaccurate.


Click to expand...

If they also consider this very important, I wonder if they too are finding that PCC rarely changes, even when the weather is very poor and the players felt scoring meant the round was much tougher than normal? If so, I also wonder if some of them are arguing that PCC does not seem to work as intended or expected?

As I do not know how PCC works, my only experience with WHS in relation to this is as follows. I could go out on a beautiful day and shoot an 80. I could go out on a terrible day and shoot 80. The scores on the terrible day from other players would likely be worse than on the beautiful day, as expected. However, rarely does PCC change, and so from my experience to this point, I'd expect both rounds to have a PCC of 0. So, as far as WHS is concerned, both scores are equal, even though I'd feel personally Day 2 was far far superior. With CSS, you would expect to see a higher value on the terrible day, especially as it seems to change more often than PCC. If CSS didn't change, then at least you could refer to the CONGU manual and ultimately see how it was worked out. This could then simply highlight scoring patterns that you had missed simply based on your own perception (such as, you might have found it very tough, but scores from other players indicated they did not find it as tough as you)

So, if the PCC calculation was at least described, and explained as best as possible as to why it is what it is, that would at least satisfy most people (well, in reality, most people probably have no idea what a course rating is  or what Slope rating actually represents, let alone what PCC is). Any arguments thereafter would be down to having to question the research and the derived formula to calculate PCC, which I doubt many would wish to go down unless they have very good mathematical knowledge as well as access to the researched scoring database (the same type of person could have done the same with CSS if they were that way inclined).


----------



## IanM (Jan 11, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			So, if the PCC calculation was at least described, and explained as best as possible as to why it is what it is, that would at least satisfy most people (well, in reality, most people probably have no idea what a course rating is  or what Slope rating actually represents, let alone what PCC is). Any arguments thereafter would be down to having to question the research and the derived formula to calculate PCC, which I doubt many would wish to go down unless they have very good mathematical knowledge as well as access to the researched scoring database (the same type of person could have done the same with CSS if they were that way inclined).
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely this!   No one cared how you work out CSS, BUT the perception was that you could quite often predict when it would change.  (note only that is might, not the exact integer!) 

This sort of "acceptance" is never present when something new is launched and it needs to managed in.  It wasn't....as copious lines on this forum demonstrate.


----------



## rosecott (Jan 11, 2022)

IanM said:



			Absolutely this!   No one cared how you work out CSS, BUT the perception was that you could quite often predict when it would change.  (note only that is might, not the exact integer!)

This sort of "acceptance" is never present when something new is launched and it needs to managed in.  It wasn't....as copious lines on this forum demonstrate.
		
Click to expand...

But - the copious lines may be from only 1 or 2 posters and may not represent the whole of the debate.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 11, 2022)

I found these to be interesting notes from EG


The mechanism was deliberately designed to be conservative in nature – and to only trigger an adjustment when the scores returned on the day demonstrate that the playing conditions are *truly ‘abnormal’*
Taking all of the above into account, there may be more days without a PCC adjustment than some would expect – *even when the conditions feel challenging*


----------



## rulefan (Jan 11, 2022)

rosecott said:



			But - the copious lines may be from only 1 or 2 posters and may not represent the whole of the debate.
		
Click to expand...

There are over 4600 views of this thread but only about a handful who are suggesting PCC is faulty. I'm no doubt high in the count of 'copious lines' but I wonder what the demand is from players in general and why we aren't seeing it here.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 12, 2022)

BiMGuy said:



			Brilliant. That sounds like the makings of a Little Britain sketch.

I played in a fair few club comps and some opens last year. Not once was PCC mentioned. I presume you are the instigator of these conversations?

The more complaints I read about WHS on here the more I’m convinced that some don’t like it because they can’t figure out how to manage their handicap like they used to.

I’m not really sure what being very competitive has to do with anything. Statements like that just reinforce my opinion above.
Maybe I’m not competitive enough to understand 🤷🏼‍♂️
		
Click to expand...

Again, why bother commenting, it doesn't bother you.

And when you assume...

I didn't instigate the club meeting, I'm pretty introverted, so no I don't tend to initiate many conversations at all actually, especially when it comes to playing with strangers in opens. 

PCC relates to your handicap, a handicap is something competitive folks gain in order to play competitive golf. 

Anyway, you've said it doesn't bother you so we'll move along to people who are talking about this because it does. Thanks for the input.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 12, 2022)

rulefan said:



			You should take more note of the context. But I'm sure you really understood that I was referring to posts #205 and #210.
		
Click to expand...

Quoting is a great tool. And post 210 doesn't exist, must be one of the forum know-it-alls I've blocked


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 12, 2022)

rulefan said:



			I found these to be interesting notes from EG


The mechanism was deliberately designed to be conservative in nature – and to only trigger an adjustment when the scores returned on the day demonstrate that the playing conditions are *truly ‘abnormal’*
Taking all of the above into account, there may be more days without a PCC adjustment than some would expect – *even when the conditions feel challenging*


Click to expand...

You keep repeating stuff we know. We know it's less sensitive, that is the whole complaint, it almost never moves, even when days are "truly abnormal", and at my club didn't move once all year. And not only is it the whole complaint, Scottish Golf have accepted they've got it wrong and are going to look at it


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 12, 2022)

rosecott said:



			But - the copious lines may be from only 1 or 2 posters and may not represent the whole of the debate.
		
Click to expand...




rulefan said:



			There are over 4600 views of this thread but only about a handful who are suggesting PCC is faulty. I'm no doubt high in the count of 'copious lines' but I wonder what the demand is from players in general and why we aren't seeing it here.
		
Click to expand...

Again, SG, an organisation known for its aloofness and resistance to any change or suggestion, have, after just one year, admitted they've had so many complaints from clubs that they are reviewing PCC. 

Sorry if that doesn't chime with the Golf Monthly forum


----------



## Crow (Jan 12, 2022)

rulefan said:



			There are over 4600 views of this thread but only about a handful who are suggesting PCC is faulty. I'm no doubt high in the count of 'copious lines' but I wonder what the demand is from players in general and why we aren't seeing it here.
		
Click to expand...

I think there's something wrong with PCC in that it's not sensitive or reflective enough of difficult playing conditions, but this debate descended into the "tin-hats on, I'm not budging" stage long ago so I see no point in commenting.


----------



## Imurg (Jan 12, 2022)

Crow said:



			I think there's something wrong with PCC in that it's not sensitive or reflective enough of difficult playing conditions, but this debate descended into the "tin-hats on, I'm not budging" stage long ago so I see no point in commenting.
		
Click to expand...


----------



## rulefan (Jan 12, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			Again, SG, an organisation known for its aloofness and resistance to any change or suggestion, have, after just one year, admitted they've had so many complaints from clubs that they are reviewing PCC.

Sorry if that doesn't chime with the Golf Monthly forum
		
Click to expand...

CONGU and the R&A are reviewing PCC as they said they would. SG are simply involved as part of CONGU.
“_That’s one of the calculations that is being looked at through CONGU, which is the four home nations, and The R&A._”
But you keep insisting SG is independently acting only because of pressure from players.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Jan 12, 2022)

rulefan said:



			CONGU and the R&A are reviewing PCC as they said they would. SG are simply involved as part of CONGU.
“_That’s one of the calculations that is being looked at through CONGU, which is the four home nations, and The R&A._”
But you keep insisting SG is independently acting only because of pressure from players.
		
Click to expand...

At no point have I said they are acting independently, I've said *they* denied to clubs that there was any issue, everything was fine, now *they're* admitting that so many complaints have been received that they are having to look at this again. Yes that's as part of CONGU, but you'll accept I hope that they were also telling us that there was no issue, that was also as part of CONGU?


----------



## rulefan (Jan 12, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			At no point have I said they are acting independently, I've said *they* denied to clubs that there was any issue, everything was fine, now *they're* admitting that so many complaints have been received that they are having to look at this again. Yes that's as part of CONGU, but you'll accept I hope that they were also telling us that there was no issue, that was also as part of CONGU?
		
Click to expand...

Not being in Scotland nor being a member of SG I am not aware of SG 'denying there was a issue', saying they had received 'many complaints' and were 'having to look at it again'.
Where and when did they publish these comments?


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 12, 2022)

I'm pretty confident that the results will be 'no need to change'.
The reason that complaints (and, having looked at several sites where comments exist there don't seem to be any regarding this 'issue') have been made seems, to me, to be that folk believe that the 'conditions adjustment' in WHS is the same as/equivalent to the one in the Congu system. It's not!! It does, however, perform a similar function - adjusting the effect on handicaps where scoring is sufficient abnormal on any day.
Under Congu, the effect (of a change to CSS for bad conditions) was to increase the score where a poor result would trigger a +0.1 to handicap (and to increase the benefit of 'good' scores). For good scores on those day, far rarer otherwise the CSS adjustment would not be triggered, a direct 0.<cat> (extra) decrease for each shot under CSS would be applied. I've actually had one of those, remarkably scoring 6 shots under normal 'cap when CSS was SSS+2, so, as a Cat 2, benefited by an extra 0.4 off handicap.
Under WHS, 'poor' scores are more likely to be in the 60-65% of scores that are either disregarded for handicap calculation or match the worst one that does count, so that achieves a similar effect.  Good scores adjust HI by 0.125 per shot better than the difference between the worst of the 8 best and the new one, plus the 0.125 of the adjustment. That's actually a greater relative adjustment for low cappers than it is for higher ones - and is more than the 0.1 per shot of Congu's adjustment.

If there really is a review performed, I'm certain that Congu has sufficient data archived to actually model the results and compare. I wouldn't expect that the results would show that the change to WHS method of adjustment for conditions has had a significant effect. The As both the old and new systems were based on Aus ones, I'm pretty certain (given analysis I've seen) that there would have been an equivalent analysis done there already.

It's simply a different system, so stop whingeing that 'the old system was better' and live with it, 'cos it ain't gonna go back!


----------



## Imurg (Jan 12, 2022)

So that then begs the question " why does it exist?"
If it's only going to kick in a handful of times per year it seems pointless having it...


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 12, 2022)

Imurg said:



			So that then begs the question " why does it exist?"
If it's only going to kick in a handful of times per year it seems pointless having it...
		
Click to expand...

1. Rosecott has already shown figures that show it's been triggered more than a handful of times per year.
2. Imagine the complaints/comments there'd be if there wasn't an adjustment!

Edit. Just checked for the numbers....  18 adjustments from 217 rounds...almost 10%!


----------



## rosecott (Jan 12, 2022)

Imurg said:



			So that then begs the question " why does it exist?"
If it's only going to kick in a handful of times per year it seems pointless having it...
		
Click to expand...

I expected nothing other than that question from the man who was violently opposed to CSS.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 12, 2022)

Imurg said:



			So that then begs the question " why does it exist?"
If it's only going to kick in a handful of times per year it seems pointless having it...
		
Click to expand...

Because it is designed for *'truly awful' *conditions not just '*poorer conditions* than we normally play in'


----------



## Imurg (Jan 12, 2022)

rosecott said:



			I expected nothing other than that question from the man who was violently opposed to CSS.
		
Click to expand...

A little harsh I feel Jim.....a dislike may be a better description


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 12, 2022)

Imurg said:



			Do we know how the "expected score" is derived?

And also what it actually is?

My scoring, in the last couple of months has ranged from 72 to 91 on a CR on 70.1 and a slope of 135..
What's my "expected score"?
		
Click to expand...

It's not an 'expected _score_' it's an expected range. Your 'Best 8' probably is a better indicator. Your worst 6 from your best 8 and best 6 from worst 12 probably even better.


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Jan 13, 2022)

Had an interesting chat with our assistant today.

Greenstaff are re-doing almost all the bunker revetting this winter, course is going to look tremendous in the summer when we are Hosting the Carris Trophy. I commented to him if he knew what the plans were regarding the rough fot the Carris bearing in mind the how the course was presented for the English Am in 2012 when there was some juicy stuff in certain parts of the course. Left hand side of the 5th was a case in point, I remember needing 3 goes to wedge it back onto the fairway about a week before the event.

We have been asked to set the course up 'fair' to the CR. Is he not allowed to let the rough grow a little longer for these elite level golfers? if its firm and running they will be hitting irons on most holes so they should be expected to keep it on the short stuff and if its blows no doubt England Golf will move a couple of tees forward as they did for the final round of the English Mid Am a fews years back (oh how the members laughed at that one...)

Point I'm making is if PCC works why the directive regarding CR for what is an elite event were the majority of the field will significantly lower than scratch?


----------



## rulefan (Jan 13, 2022)

saving_par said:



			Had an interesting chat with our assistant today.

Greenstaff are re-doing almost all the bunker revetting this winter, course is going to look tremendous in the summer when we are Hosting the Carris Trophy. I commented to him if he knew what the plans were regarding the rough fot the Carris bearing in mind the how the course was presented for the English Am in 2012 when there was some juicy stuff in certain parts of the course. Left hand side of the 5th was a case in point, I remember needing 3 goes to wedge it back onto the fairway about a week before the event.

We have been asked to set the course up 'fair' to the CR. Is he not allowed to let the rough grow a little longer for these elite level golfers? if its firm and running they will be hitting irons on most holes so they should be expected to keep it on the short stuff and if its blows no doubt England Golf will move a couple of tees forward as they did for the final round of the English Mid Am a fews years back (oh how the members laughed at that one...)

Point I'm making is if PCC works why the directive regarding CR for what is an elite event were the majority of the field will significantly lower than scratch?
		
Click to expand...

Why are you suggesting that PCC wouldn't work as designed? It is not a matter of comparing it with what the CSS might or might not have been.
Of course the scoring range for those players will be pretty narrow but there wouldn't be a significant number of abnormal scores.


----------



## Deleted member 3432 (Jan 13, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Why are you suggesting that PCC wouldn't work as designed? It is not a matter of comparing it with what the CSS might or might not have been.
Of course the scoring range for those players will be pretty narrow but there wouldn't be a significant number of abnormal scores.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting that it wouldn't work as designed. Maybe I should have raised this elsewhere.

What I'm wondering is the direction from EG to set the course up 'fair' to Course rating whatever that means. Brian Story is a great greenkeeper but he can't prevent 35 mph winds showing up that week....

As I said the English Am had some longer rough than we usually see in areas lacking heather or gorse and I would have expected to see the same this summer seeing it is an elite field. The directive suggests a course set up no different from what we members play. A hard course set up shoudn't matter as PCC would pick that up surely?


----------



## doublebogey7 (Jan 13, 2022)

saving_par said:



			I'm not suggesting that it wouldn't work as designed. Maybe I should have raised this elsewhere.

What I'm wondering is the direction from EG to set the course up 'fair' to Course rating whatever that means. Brian Story is a great greenkeeper but he can't prevent 35 mph winds showing up that week....

As I said the English Am had some longer rough than we usually see in areas lacking heather or gorse and I would have expected to see the same this summer seeing it is an elite field. The directive suggests a course set up no different from what we members play. A hard course set up shoudn't matter as PCC would pick that up surely?
		
Click to expand...

Or perhaps it's because it's a Boy's even  Not sure why you would draw the conclusion that it would have anything to do with PCC anyhow.  In my experience elite competition organisers limit tough set ups only for the very biggest events as generally they prefer to see good scoring these days.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 13, 2022)

saving_par said:



			Had an interesting chat with our assistant today.

Greenstaff are re-doing almost all the bunker revetting this winter, course is going to look tremendous in the summer when we are Hosting the Carris Trophy. I commented to him if he knew what the plans were regarding the rough fot the Carris bearing in mind the how the course was presented for the English Am in 2012 when there was some juicy stuff in certain parts of the course. Left hand side of the 5th was a case in point, I remember needing 3 goes to wedge it back onto the fairway about a week before the event.

We have been asked to set the course up 'fair' to the CR. Is he not allowed to let the rough grow a little longer for these elite level golfers? if its firm and running they will be hitting irons on most holes so they should be expected to keep it on the short stuff and if its blows no doubt England Golf will move a couple of tees forward as they did for the final round of the English Mid Am a fews years back (oh how the members laughed at that one...)

Point I'm making is if PCC works why the directive regarding CR for what is an elite event were the majority of the field will significantly lower than scratch?
		
Click to expand...

They probably want it close to 'standard' so 'silly' scores that can come from a combo of setup and conditions are less likely to happen. Tough but fair is probably the guide.
I believe, from a past winner, that that's how The Brabazon courses ar set up. It's only the likes of US Opens that are set up deliberately severely. Augusta isn't as the greens make it 'tough enough'.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 13, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Tough but fair is probably the guide.
		
Click to expand...

Having been involved in or responsible for 'setting up' courses for elite players (albeit at county level) that is spot on. I doubt that unless really brutal weather by NW coast standards rears up, the standard and consistency of the best youngsters in the land will not trouble the PCC calculations.
A field that has too many disastrous scores is not good news for the competition administrators. EG in this case don't want egg on their faces.


----------



## rulefan (Jan 24, 2022)

Just for info. I am told that CONGU does not now have any direct say in its calculation. But are represented on the Operations Committee. The WHS research people have now been provided with all the 2021 data and are working on it. Let's wait and see.


----------



## yandabrown (Feb 1, 2022)

It was a little breezy yesterday and there was a seniors competition on, PCC was 3, not seen that before under new rules (not sure I did under old ones either). It has to be said I don't look regularly but it does show it can move when the conditions are right.


----------



## Trodski (Apr 15, 2022)

Long time lurker but interested to know answer to a question;

Played yesterday and put in a general play round, perfect conditions no wind, 17 degrees, PCC 3. Couldn’t believe it. Last year played in horrific conditions a few times with terrible scores from the field with no change.  

Checked on how did I do this morning and there was a ladies competition on yesterday and not to be disparaging but most are slightly senior in years and return very poor stableford scores. 

The winning score was 33 points and the field average was an estimate of 24 points from 30 players. 

My question is will my general play score be compared against the ladies as part of the PCC calculation? That’s the only way I can see how they can arrive at a PCC of 3.

Although my aim is to reduce my handicap a 0.4 cut was not accurate IMO and wouldn’t have been if the field differed.


----------



## wjemather (Apr 15, 2022)

Trodski said:



			My question is will my general play score be compared against the ladies as part of the PCC calculation?
		
Click to expand...

Yes. There is (usually) only one PCC calculation per course per day, and it includes all scores from all sets of tees.


----------



## Trodski (Apr 15, 2022)

Interesting. I’m sure if there was a men’s comp and a ladies comp on the same day at our club there would be a quite a big difference between the scores of the fields. 

This would certainly dissuade me from submitting a general play round when there is a ladies comp in the future, if we want a reflective handicap.


----------



## wjemather (Apr 15, 2022)

Trodski said:



			Interesting. I’m sure if there was a men’s comp and a ladies comp on the same day at our club there would be a quite a big difference between the scores of the fields.

This would certainly dissuade me from submitting a general play round when there is a ladies comp in the future, if we want a reflective handicap.
		
Click to expand...

If everyone's handicap is a true reflection of their scoring ability, and everyone is trying to make their best score on each hole, the system will work perfectly well. Even so, the impact of an individual PCC is minimal on the overall index (0.4 at most).

If your senior ladies are anything like ours, most will be counting scores from 3+ years ago, so their handicaps could be way off where they should be. Sounds like there may be some work for your handicap committee to investigate.


----------



## IanMcC (Apr 15, 2022)

wjemather said:



			If everyone's handicap is a true reflection of their scoring ability, and everyone is trying to make their best score on each hole, the system will work perfectly well. Even so, the impact of an individual PCC is minimal on the overall index (0.4 at most).

*If your senior ladies are anything like ours, most will be counting scores from 3+ years ago, so their handicaps could be way off where they should be. *Sounds like there may be some work for your handicap committee to investigate.
		
Click to expand...

You are surely one of the more informed members of the forum, but I find your comments in this post ageist, elitist and sexist.
Truth of the matter is, until the algorithm is published, no one knows how PCC works.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 16, 2022)

IanMcC said:



			You are surely one of the more informed members of the forum, but I find your comments in this post ageist, elitist and sexist.
...
		
Click to expand...

Seems to me, it simply a case of being realistic! Nothing of any of those '3 sins', so much as an instance demonstrating how an abberation of the PCC can be occur by the returns on the particular day - in this case as outlined in post 251. The fact that the season proper is just beginning possibly had an influence on the scores too.


----------



## wjemather (Apr 16, 2022)

IanMcC said:



			You are surely one of the more informed members of the forum, but I find your comments in this post ageist, elitist and sexist.
Truth of the matter is, until the algorithm is published, no one knows how PCC works.
		
Click to expand...

Not in the slightest - it's an accurate representation of not just the handicaps of that demographic at my club, but also my wife's club.

In general, seniors have handicaps that are increasing, i.e. they are declining golfers. 90% of our senior ladies went into WHS with less than 10 scores on their record, mostly from 2018 and 2019. Most of them have not submitted enough qualifying rounds since then (because they often don't want to commit to playing a full 9 or 18) to push these out of the most recent 20. In many cases, all recent scores are more than 5 over handicap, and almost none are counting. No ladies were flagged for review.

We do not know the exact formulae to be able to calculate it ourselves, but we do know the methodology of how PCC works.


----------



## rulefan (Apr 16, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Not in the slightest - it's an accurate representation of not just the handicaps of that demographic at my club, but also my wife's club.

90% of our senior ladies went into WHS with less than 10 scores on their record, mostly from 2018 and 2019. Most of them have not submitted enough qualifying rounds since then to push these out of the most recent 20. In many cases, all recent scores are more than 5 over handicap, and almost none are counting. None were flagged for review.

We do not know the exact formulae to be able to calculate it ourselves, but we do know the methodology of how PCC works.
		
Click to expand...

A review by our Lady Vice Captain found a very similar situation at my club but I suspect a fair number of senior males would fit the picture


----------



## wjemather (Apr 16, 2022)

rulefan said:



			A review by our Lady Vice Captain found a very similar situation at my club but I suspect a fair number of senior males would fit the picture 

Click to expand...

Indeed, but sheer weight of numbers of senior men who play comps regularly (twice a month, often more frequently) _and _submit GP scores, means that similar distortion of the PCC is much less likely during the period where their handicaps adjust.


----------



## Backsticks (Apr 16, 2022)

IanMcC said:



			You are surely one of the more informed members of the forum, but I find your comments in this post ageist, elitist and sexist.
Truth of the matter is, until the algorithm is published, no one knows how PCC works.
		
Click to expand...

I would think there is enough data publicly available from competition results and the corresponding PCCs, that it should not be very difficult to reverse engineer it at this stage and make it effectively public or at least give people a good feel for its dynamic. I was wondering if it had changed already this year actually, as while last year we had almost no adjustments even when we would have expected in the past from CSS and none by more that a shot, this year in my club we have had 6 qualify competitions, and one was increased by 1 shot, another by 2.


----------



## Crow (Apr 16, 2022)

wjemather said:



			Not in the slightest - it's an accurate representation of not just the handicaps of that demographic at my club, but also my wife's club.

In general, seniors have handicaps that are increasing, i.e. they are declining golfers. 90% of our senior ladies went into WHS with less than 10 scores on their record, mostly from 2018 and 2019. Most of them have not submitted enough qualifying rounds since then (because they often don't want to commit to playing a full 9 or 18) to push these out of the most recent 20. In many cases, all recent scores are more than 5 over handicap, and almost none are counting. No ladies were flagged for review.

We do not know the exact formulae to be able to calculate it ourselves, but we do know the methodology of how PCC works.
		
Click to expand...

If the senior ladies (or any other group with non-representative handicaps) go out in a competition on a fine day and play badly compared to their incorrect handicaps and the PCC goes up by 3 shots accordingly, does the club have the ability to correct the PCC back to zero so that it reflects the actual playing conditions rather than the out of kilter handicaps?


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 16, 2022)

Crow said:



			If the senior ladies (or any other group with non-representative handicaps) go out in a competition on a fine day and play badly compared to their incorrect handicaps and the PCC goes up by 3 shots accordingly, does the club have the ability to correct the PCC back to zero so that it reflects the actual playing conditions rather than the out of kilter handicaps?
		
Click to expand...

I very much doubt it...Otherwise that would be likely to happen in many instances - by 'old style' managd clubs.


----------



## wjemather (Apr 16, 2022)

Crow said:



			If the senior ladies (or any other group with non-representative handicaps) go out in a competition on a fine day and play badly compared to their incorrect handicaps and the PCC goes up by 3 shots accordingly, does the club have the ability to correct the PCC back to zero so that it reflects the actual playing conditions rather than the out of kilter handicaps?
		
Click to expand...

No. PCC cannot be adjusted based on a subjective assessment. Handicap committees can only try and ensure their members' handicaps reflect their current ability - which is very difficult if they haven't been putting scores in.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 16, 2022)

wjemather said:



			No. PCC cannot a adjusted based on a subjective assessment. Handicap committees can only try and ensure their members' handicaps reflect their current ability - which is very difficult if they haven't been putting scores in.
		
Click to expand...

Do you know of any Handicap Secretary that has dared to adjust handicaps of those that 'caused the abberation'?

The H'Cap sec at my first club - who was pretty obsessed with keeping handicaps under control, to avoid the (Resort) club getting a bad name in Open events that quite a few played, laughed when we discussed the group of similar types at the club. His statement was that there was little point, as they rarely, if ever, competed in comps (the 'cause' of the issue) and, relative to the rest in the groups they played in socially, none were getting worse any faster than others. 'And besides...I wouldn't dare!' were his exact words!

With PCC being calculated for ALL scores of the day cf only Comp ones, that's changed - though averaging does reduce the effect for non-competitors somewhat.


----------



## wjemather (Apr 16, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			Do you know of any Handicap Secretary that has dared to adjust handicaps of those that 'caused the abberation'?
		
Click to expand...

No, not aware of any. It's difficult to see how anything could justifiably be done on the basis of a couple of scores anyway - the CONGU line has consistently been to encourage more scores to be submitted and let the system work.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 16, 2022)

wjemather said:



			No, not aware of any. It's difficult to see how anything could justifiably be done on the basis of a couple of scores anyway - the CONGU line has consistently been to encourage more scores to be submitted and let the system work.
		
Click to expand...

That H'Cap Sec had an amazing knowledge of the entire club's real 'current' levels - at every level. He surprised me with his knowledge of our swindle's scores and attitudes within it (both significant improvers such as I was for a season, and significant drifters, as were a several older members). His main concern was with the 'gamblers' swindle, many of whom were near Cat 1 and also played Opens, both Scratch and Handicap.
I agree with the encouragement of submitting scores. The group I play with (when I can) have used a WHS/Slope style system for many years - using every score.


----------



## rulefan (Apr 16, 2022)

Foxholer said:



			The group I play with (when I can) have used a WHS/Slope style system for many years - using every score.
		
Click to expand...

How did they determine a Slope factor?


----------



## yandabrown (Apr 16, 2022)

Crow said:



			If the senior ladies (or any other group with non-representative handicaps) go out in a competition on a fine day and play badly compared to their incorrect handicaps and the PCC goes up by 3 shots accordingly, does the club have the ability to correct the PCC back to zero so that it reflects the actual playing conditions rather than the out of kilter handicaps?
		
Click to expand...

I believe that section 5.6/2 would possibly allow it (the make-up of the field in a competition being played on the day is significantly different from the make-up of the players participating in general play rounds on the same day). However:
1) I can't see how you do it
2) What constitutes significant?
3) Will there be more than 8 other acceptable scores to make another PCC?
Reading the next part (5.6/3) it would seem to me that the competition get a special PCC and everyone else gets the daily PCC which still includes the competition scores, so no change!


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 16, 2022)

rulefan said:



			How did they determine a Slope factor?
		
Click to expand...

Initially, it was a hybrid of best 8 of last 20 against SSS. But as soon as Slope was available, that was used. Several courses were involved too. It didn't need to be absolutely accurate - as long as it was consistent within the group just like many swindles have swindle handicaps that are not particularly related to official Congu ones.
I remember the rule of thumb we applied, elsewhere, to American visitors of adding 15- 20% to their HIs if in 'mixed' groups at other courses years earlier. It worked pretty well, but obviously is now superceded by WHS.


----------



## Crazyface (Apr 17, 2022)

I'm surprised at the figure of 25% of scores are general rounds. I love the system and being able to put all my scores in as counting towards my HC. As does my wife. We try and enter all our rounds in. Hence I've got horrendous scores posted but they don't count so I don't care.  We could give player a push at ours to get them to do the same as everyone has to go to the pro shop prior to playing and they could ask players if they want to enter their scores. I think I'll suggest the idea


----------



## Backache (Apr 17, 2022)

Must admit I generally have little interest in filling in a card on social rounds and am probably not going to start.


----------



## Banchory Buddha (Apr 17, 2022)

Backsticks said:



			I was wondering if it had changed already this year actually, as while last year we had almost no adjustments even when we would have expected in the past from CSS and none by more that a shot, this year in my club we have had 6 qualify competitions, and one was increased by 1 shot, another by 2.
		
Click to expand...

I was suspecting the same, still none at my home club, but my away club had two of the first four medals adjusted. 

I think the authorities have tweaked this, but after their pronouncements about how well it was working last year, possibly don't  want egg on their face having to admit they got it wrong


----------



## IanM (Apr 17, 2022)

Got it wrong?  No, it just that golfers haven't read the manual properly!


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 17, 2022)

Banchory Buddha said:



			I was suspecting the same, still none at my home club, but my away club had two of the first four medals adjusted.

*I think the authorities have tweaked this, but after their pronouncements about how well it was working last year, possibly don't  want egg on their face having to admit they got it wrong*

Click to expand...


I don't believe that's what has happened at all! I'd put the couple of adjustments (1 shot?) down to 'early in the season' syndrome! Especially if it's at a Scottish course, where weather and ground conditions can be pretty dire early in the season.


----------



## Backsticks (Apr 17, 2022)

Has there been any analysis on how handicaps overall have moved over the last year. If handicaps were 'high' due to the change to WHS, and there has been a settling, it might have depressed the incidence of corrections last year, and simply be working more as designed this year with handicaps better aligned with WHS.


----------



## Crow (Apr 20, 2022)

https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/...stem-playing-conditions-calculation-scrutiny/


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 20, 2022)

Crow said:



https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/...stem-playing-conditions-calculation-scrutiny/

Click to expand...

Seems reasonable - but could well knobble (another) part of the 'World'HS somewhat.


----------



## Swango1980 (Apr 20, 2022)

Crow said:



https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/...stem-playing-conditions-calculation-scrutiny/

Click to expand...

Sounds like Gemma Hunter is now officially confirming she has the same concerns people in these forums have been expressing for some time.


----------



## Region3 (Apr 20, 2022)

I know PCC is secret, and the old CSS was based around the number of players hitting buffer or better (or something like that), but last weekend 104 players entered our medal. 4 had nett par of better (winner nett 70) and the PCC was zero, yet there are multiple rounds in my last 20 that had a PCC of 2 applied when scoring was pretty decent.

I know the theory behind it is sound but a part of me wishes they’d bin it. It would only make a different of a few tenths at most per round where it would be applied but at least we’d know where we stood.


----------



## Jimaroid (Apr 20, 2022)

From that article this is eyebrow raising




			We have looked at our data and we’ve identified that, around about 92 per cent of the time, the PCC remains at zero, which is far, far, far too conservative than what we need it to be.
		
Click to expand...

In the 90th percentile to have no effect is completely broken.


----------



## IanM (Apr 20, 2022)

So, Gemma says what folk have been saying on here for ages! OK. 

Giggles.


----------



## JonnyGutteridge (Apr 20, 2022)

In my last 12 competition rounds, PCC hasn't moved. I've played with crazy flag positions, greens at 12 on the stimp, high winds, rain, hot, cold, and none of those have any effect on the difficulty of the course on any given day? It must be that England Golf rated the course so accurately that PCC isn't required...

It's a load of garbage.

I'm still angry, as a maths guy, that for some reason PCC isn't calculated to 1 decimal place. Why can't the course rating be 71.2 on a normal day, 71.5 when it's tough, 70.9 when it's easy, why does it have to be a wholly inaccurate measure of 71.2, 72.2, 73.2 etc?


----------



## Backsticks (Apr 20, 2022)

JonnyGutteridge said:



			I'm still angry, as a maths guy, that for some reason PCC isn't calculated to 1 decimal place. Why can't the course rating be 71.2 on a normal day, 71.5 when it's tough, 70.9 when it's easy, why does it have to be a wholly inaccurate measure of 71.2, 72.2, 73.2 etc?
		
Click to expand...

Because they arent necessarily inaccurate at all. PCC to a decimal place is useless unless it makes it more accurate. Given the number of players in the one day sample, and the standard deviation of each of those players, accuracy to better than 1 may not be possible. Conditions from morning to afternoon alone for example, might move by 1 or more, making use of a PCC with a decimal place only superficially accurate, but statistically nonsense.


----------



## wjemather (Apr 20, 2022)

JonnyGutteridge said:



			I'm still angry, as a maths guy, that for some reason PCC isn't calculated to 1 decimal place. Why can't the course rating be 71.2 on a normal day, 71.5 when it's tough, 70.9 when it's easy, why does it have to be a wholly inaccurate measure of 71.2, 72.2, 73.2 etc?
		
Click to expand...

Just how precise do you think a calculation that is based on the highly variable scores of (mostly bad) amateur golfers, covering a complete day of inconsistent weather, can be? An integer value is about as precise as it can be.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 20, 2022)

JonnyGutteridge said:



			...
I'm still angry, as a maths guy, that for some reason PCC isn't calculated to 1 decimal place. Why can't the course rating be 71.2 on a normal day, 71.5 when it's tough, 70.9 when it's easy, why does it have to be a wholly inaccurate measure of 71.2, 72.2, 73.2 etc?
		
Click to expand...

Because it's an adjustment to your nett/gross score - which is always a whole number!
When was the last time you scored a Gross or Net score that had a decimal value?!


----------



## peld (Apr 21, 2022)

last week our midweek stableford, they maxxed out the course full and proper.
One guy got 35 points, and 3 got 33 points. i.e. no one shot handicap in a field of about 40. 
No PCC


----------



## Wabinez (Apr 21, 2022)

peld said:



			last week our midweek stableford, they maxxed out the course full and proper.
One guy got 35 points, and 3 got 33 points. i.e. no one shot handicap in a field of about 40.
No PCC
		
Click to expand...

36 points isn’t shooting your handicap….

what’s the Course Rating?


----------



## wjemather (Apr 21, 2022)

peld said:



			last week our midweek stableford, they maxxed out the course full and proper.
One guy got 35 points, and 3 got 33 points. i.e. no one shot handicap in a field of about 40.
No PCC
		
Click to expand...

Assuming Dalmahoy East(?), the Course Rating is about 2 over par, making playing to handicap about 34 points.
Also worth noting that most players should be expected to score a few (~4) strokes over handicap.


----------



## peld (Apr 21, 2022)

Wabinez said:



			what’s the Course Rating?
		
Click to expand...

Dalmahoy East is 73.9 / 131 from medal white tees. Par 73 (just shy of 7,000 yards).

Back 9 has a slope of 140!


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 21, 2022)

peld said:



			last week our midweek stableford, they maxxed out the course full and proper.
One guy got 35 points, and 3 got 33 points. i.e. no one shot handicap in a field of about 40.
No PCC
		
Click to expand...

Max-ing out a course, after a period where it's been 'shortened' can have that sort of effect.


----------



## Wabinez (Apr 21, 2022)

peld said:



			Dalmahoy East is 73.9 / 131 from medal white tees. Par 73 (just shy of 7,000 yards).

Back 9 has a slope of 140!
		
Click to expand...

Ok….so 35 is really ‘playing to handicap‘.

in which case, I would say the scores are pretty expected


----------



## Springveldt (Apr 22, 2022)

Wabinez said:



			Ok….so 35 is really ‘playing to handicap‘.

in which case, I would say the scores are pretty expected
		
Click to expand...

1 guy out of 40 playing to handicap is expected?

I’d bet under the old CSS that would have definitely moved.

Not a single round of mine last year had a PCC applied to it and there were a couple were I thought if it was CSS it would have been a +1 or even a +2. A comp towards the end of the year, I had 36 points in 25mph winds (35 points is playing to course rating) and there were only 12 players out of 97 that had 35 or better, only 8 had 36 or better. I’m sure under CSS that would have moved.


----------



## wjemather (Apr 22, 2022)

Springveldt said:



			1 guy out of 40 playing to handicap is expected?

I’d bet under the old CSS that would have definitely moved.

Not a single round of mine last year had a PCC applied to it and there were a couple were I thought if it was CSS it would have been a +1 or even a +2. A comp towards the end of the year, I had 36 points in 25mph winds (35 points is playing to course rating) and there were only 12 players out of 97 that had 35 or better, only 8 had 36 or better. I’m sure under CSS that would have moved.
		
Click to expand...

How many play to handicap and whether CSS would have moved are irrelevant (CSS was not based in expected scoring). PCC is calculated on the basis of the proportion of players returning a score in their expected range, which for a scratch player is likely to be something like -1 to +4 or +5 (to handicap, possibly not even this good), with wider ranges for higher handicappers.


----------



## Swango1980 (Apr 22, 2022)

Springveldt said:



			1 guy out of 40 playing to handicap is expected?

I’d bet under the old CSS that would have definitely moved.

Not a single round of mine last year had a PCC applied to it and there were a couple were I thought if it was CSS it would have been a +1 or even a +2. A comp towards the end of the year, I had 36 points in 25mph winds (35 points is playing to course rating) and there were only 12 players out of 97 that had 35 or better, only 8 had 36 or better. I’m sure under CSS that would have moved.
		
Click to expand...

Although I agree that PCC does not look to be working as hoped, I think your example may not entirely support it.

12% of the field had 35 or more. However, CSS calcs were not interested in that, but the % of players playing to buffer. So, 34 points for Cat1, 33 for Cat2, 32 for Cat3, etc. So, that % is likely a lot higher than 12%, and I reckon would mean CSS could well be SSS. For example, in a field with 10% Cat 1, 40% Cat 2 and 50% Cat 3 and 4, if 26% to 49% played to buffer, CSS would equal SSS. 

Add to that the points you quote are presumably based on Playing Handicaps. If Course Handicaps are higher, as they often are, the points totals would be higher


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 22, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Although I agree that PCC does not look to be working as hoped, I think your example may not entirely support it.

12% of the field had 35 or more. However, CSS calcs were not interested in that, but the % of players playing to buffer. So, 34 points for Cat1, 33 for Cat2, 32 for Cat3, etc. So, that % is likely a lot higher than 12%, and I reckon would mean CSS could well be SSS. For example, in a field with 10% Cat 1, 40% Cat 2 and 50% Cat 3 and 4, if 26% to 49% played to buffer, CSS would equal SSS.

Add to that the points you quote are presumably based on Playing Handicaps. If Course Handicaps are higher, as they often are, the points totals would be higher
		
Click to expand...

Indeed, it's %-ages that buffer that was important. That was even visible a couple of times at an old club - where the winner was the only one with 36+ points but lots got 34/35.


----------



## Springveldt (Apr 22, 2022)

Swango1980 said:



			Although I agree that PCC does not look to be working as hoped, I think your example may not entirely support it.

12% of the field had 35 or more. However, CSS calcs were not interested in that, but the % of players playing to buffer. So, 34 points for Cat1, 33 for Cat2, 32 for Cat3, etc. So, that % is likely a lot higher than 12%, and I reckon would mean CSS could well be SSS. For example, in a field with 10% Cat 1, 40% Cat 2 and 50% Cat 3 and 4, if 26% to 49% played to buffer, CSS would equal SSS.

Add to that the points you quote are presumably based on Playing Handicaps. If Course Handicaps are higher, as they often are, the points totals would be higher
		
Click to expand...

Wasn’t aware of the actual calculation but just going from experience when it was that windy and when so little played to handicap the CSS was usually +1. Maybe those days most people missed buffer as well but I didn’t notice since I wasn’t aware that buffer was used in CSS. 

Thanks for the explanation.


----------



## Bwgan (Apr 23, 2022)

Since WHS came in ive not seen a PCC adjustment at our club..
Today we had a field of 164, 4 broke Par 66, 68, 69 & 69. 3 on Par. Middle of the pack 82nd 9 over.

Will wait for the official results tomorrow, surely PCC would move in this case?


----------



## rulefan (Apr 23, 2022)

Bwgan said:



			Since WHS came in ive not seen a PCC adjustment at our club..
Today we had a field of 164, 4 broke Par 66, 68, 69 & 69. 3 on Par. Middle of the pack 82nd 9 over.

Will wait for the official results tomorrow, surely PCC would move in this case?
		
Click to expand...

Forget par. What is the Course Rating? That's what WHS uses.
Bur were all the players within their expected range?


----------



## Bwgan (Apr 23, 2022)

Course Rating 70.9

No idea what expected range is


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 23, 2022)

Bwgan said:



			Since WHS came in ive not seen a PCC adjustment at our club..
Today we had a field of 164, 4 broke Par 66, 68, 69 & 69. 3 on Par. Middle of the pack 82nd 9 over.

Will wait for the official results tomorrow, surely PCC would move in this case?
		
Click to expand...

Very little of that is directly relevant to PCC adjustment, nor was it to any CSS adjustment!


----------



## IanM (Apr 23, 2022)

Bwgan said:



			Since WHS came in ive not seen a PCC adjustment at our club..

Will wait for the official results tomorrow, surely PCC would move in this case?
		
Click to expand...

What did the entrails look like when you sacrificed the goat?


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 23, 2022)

Difficult conditions today in the medal and only 14 out of 122 managed to play to nett CR or better (10 better).  I’ve no idea how PCC is calculated but in the past I can easy imagine CSS going up. Wonder if there will be a PCC today.  

Of course the above may be irrelevant and what matters are the changes in the HI of the 122…and that‘s an unknown to all but the system and algorithm.


----------



## mikejohnchapman (Apr 24, 2022)

As PCC is implemented as part of the World Handicap System is it just the UK that is getting exorcised by the seeming low response of the calculation (whatever it is). Presumably outside of CONGU there wasn't the same CSS under the old system.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 24, 2022)

mikejohnchapman said:



			As PCC is implemented as part of the World Handicap System is it just the UK that is getting exorcised by the seeming low response of the calculation (whatever it is). Presumably outside of CONGU there wasn't the same CSS under the old system.
		
Click to expand...

Seems to me that that 'change' is the whole crux of the issue.
While, for Congu, almost the entire method of calculating/adjusting handicaps has changed from the previous method, this area is seen as one that should be 'equivalent'. I'm neutral on whether it should/shouldn't be 'more sensitive' (as the entire calculation method has changed), but would like to see the 'evidence' - as in charts of scores - either way.


----------



## rulefan (Apr 24, 2022)

mikejohnchapman said:



			As PCC is implemented as part of the World Handicap System is it just the UK that is getting exorcised by the seeming low response of the calculation (whatever it is). Presumably outside of CONGU there wasn't the same CSS under the old system.
		
Click to expand...

Correct.


Foxholer said:



			Seems to me that that 'change' is the whole crux of the issue.
While, for Congu, almost the entire method of calculating/adjusting handicaps has changed from the previous method, this area is seen as one that should be 'equivalent'. I'm neutral on whether it should/shouldn't be 'more sensitive' (as the entire calculation method has changed), but would like to see the 'evidence' - as in charts of scores - either way.
		
Click to expand...

That's what EG is proposing to do.


----------



## Backsticks (Apr 24, 2022)

If indeed it is applied less frequently, it could be that it doesnt need to be.

Firstly, the best 8 of 20 system has a discarding of anomolous scores in it anyway. Previously, every card contributed to your evolving hc.

Secondly, the influence of a shot  pcc is reduced anyway in many cases. Previously it could provoke a nudge up by .1, or down by .1,.2,.3, or .4. Now the only nudge is 0.125.

Calculating a PCC to clearly justify 0.125 adjustments (for probably less than 40% of the field for whom that round will become a counting one) may need a stronger case than we were familiar with.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Apr 24, 2022)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Difficult conditions today in the medal and only 14 out of 122 managed to play to nett CR or better (10 better).  I’ve no idea how PCC is calculated but in the past I can easy imagine CSS going up. Wonder if there will be a PCC today.  

Of course the above may be irrelevant and what matters are the changes in the HI of the 122…and that‘s an unknown to all but the system and algorithm.
		
Click to expand...

Looks like no PCC applied.


----------



## Bwgan (Apr 24, 2022)

Bwgan said:



			Since WHS came in ive not seen a PCC adjustment at our club..
Today we had a field of 164, 4 broke Par 66, 68, 69 & 69. 3 on Par. Middle of the pack 82nd 9 over.

Will wait for the official results tomorrow, surely PCC would move in this case?
		
Click to expand...

So just seen the results and first time theres s PCC of 1.


----------



## rulefan (Apr 24, 2022)

Bwgan said:



			So just seen the results and first time theres s PCC of 1.
		
Click to expand...

So there is a Father Christmas as well as PCC


----------



## Bwgan (Apr 24, 2022)

At least I know how Father Christmas gets here (well done Rudolf), still no clue how PCC does.


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 24, 2022)

rulefan said:



			So there is a Father Christmas as well as PCC 

Click to expand...

Easter Bunny, surely. Albeit, delayed a week - by Covid?


----------



## Foxholer (Apr 24, 2022)

rulefan said:



			Correct.

That's what EG is proposing to do.
		
Click to expand...

So, presumably, that wasn't done before. Or was it simply brushed over in the 'rush' to get WHS in? I know it takes a bit of work, but not all that much - and the guys that established the process (seemingly Aussie guys did much of the work in this area) seem to be available.

As Backsticks posted above, the real effect of an adjustment is moderated by both the completely different selection for adjustment and the different calculation involved if it is. So it's not simply an exercise to 'standardise' each set of scores.


----------

