Alterations to WHS?

[clubchamp98]

Remember, it is quite different to CSS.

Yes I was answering to “ it’s supposed to be 10%”

 

[rosecott]

Interesting note on a related article saying the new (2023) pcc calculation was supposed to affect around 10 percent of scores. No idea how this is calculated obviously, but its currently on zero of my last 20, which lasts about the last 3 months...

It only came in at ours twice all year.
That does seem like there is something wrong.
We have almost 200 in the comps in summer.

I just wondered if you had access to the data for your courses or was it just your personal impression of the situation.

Anyone who has full access to the WHS platform can view the PCC report for all the clubs at which his own members have played. I have pulled out the data for the first 17 clubs listed alphabetically on ours from 1st January this year:

PCC
-1	1	0	0	3	2	5	7	1	3	5	3	1	5	4	3	2	5
0	149	209	154	100	261	204	233	172	232	250	268	256	228	232	222	219	180
+1	13	6	12	3	19	10	7	19	8	6	9	13	9	8	7	9	8
+2	4	4	14	6	4	4	6	8	7	2	4	3	5	4	3	12	3
+3	13	6	7	4	3	2	0	15	3	2	1	3	6	2	7	4	3

 

[rulefan]

Yes I was answering to “ it’s supposed to be 10%”

OK. Goodness knows where that (10%) came from.
See the next to last bullet point here: https://www.englandgolf.org/playing-conditions-calculation

The last part of this may have caused some confusion

World Handicap System: The controversial Playing Conditions Calculation has been changed

One of the most maligned parts of the World Handicap System has been altered. Steve Carroll has the details

www.nationalclubgolfer.com

 

[clubchamp98]

I just wondered if you had access to the data for your courses or was it just your personal impression of the situation.

Anyone who has full access to the WHS platform can view the PCC report for all the clubs at which his own members have played. I have pulled out the data for the first 17 clubs listed alphabetically on ours from 1st January this year:

PCC
-1	1	0	0	3	2	5	7	1	3	5	3	1	5	4	3	2	5
0	149	209	154	100	261	204	233	172	232	250	268	256	228	232	222	219	180
+1	13	6	12	3	19	10	7	19	8	6	9	13	9	8	7	9	8
+2	4	4	14	6	4	4	6	8	7	2	4	3	5	4	3	12	3
+3	13	6	7	4	3	2	0	15	3	2	1	3	6	2	7	4	3

No I don’t have access.
But the PCC shows on your competition scores List on IG.

 

[clubchamp98]

OK. Goodness knows where that (10%) came from.
See the next to last bullet point here: https://www.englandgolf.org/playing-conditions-calculation

The last part of this may have caused some confusion

World Handicap System: The controversial Playing Conditions Calculation has been changed

One of the most maligned parts of the World Handicap System has been altered. Steve Carroll has the details

www.nationalclubgolfer.com

It seems it will still be talked about because they are keeping it a secret again.

I assumed the scores would trigger it if they are higher than normal.!
But it’s very hard to understand somthing if you don’t know how the algorithm works!

 

[YandaB]

England Golf have a webinar about it tomorrow, it might be worth a listen:

https://x.com/EnglandGolf/status/1716801775469048103?s=20

 

[Alan Clifford]

England Golf have a webinar about it tomorrow, it might be worth a listen:

https://x.com/EnglandGolf/status/1716801775469048103?s=20

I'm going out. Do they produce a recording of these things?

 

[wjemather]

It seems it will still be talked about because they are keeping it a secret again.

I assumed the scores would trigger it if they are higher than normal.!
But it’s very hard to understand somthing if you don’t know how the algorithm works!

What is your perception of "normal", and how does that relate to expected scoring patterns?

Most people's reference remains CSS, which was benchmarked against playing to handicap; but PCC is benchmarked against expected scoring patterns. Also worth remembering that average scores are 3-4 strokes over handicap, so this should be a starting point for any expectations, not playing to handicap.

 

[clubchamp98]

What is your perception of "normal", and how does that relate to expected scoring patterns?

Most people's reference remains CSS, which was benchmarked against playing to handicap; but PCC is benchmarked against expected scoring patterns. Also worth remembering that average scores are 3-4 strokes over handicap, so this should be a starting point for any expectations, not playing to handicap.

34 pts is normal imo , it’s not great but it’s not that bad either!

Maybe that was part of the problem!
Expecting golfers to preform to certain levels instead of using the scores they actually shoot.

But why won’t they even tell the clubs how it works?
The more things you keep a secret the more people don’t trust it.
Imagine that in any other sport “ we want you to implement this but we’re not telling you how to work it out ,it’s a secret.!

 

[wjemather]

34 pts is normal imo , it’s not great but it’s not that bad either!

Maybe that was part of the problem!
Expecting golfers to preform to certain levels instead of using the scores they actually shoot.

But why won’t they even tell the clubs how it works?
The more things you keep a secret the more people don’t trust it.
Imagine that in any other sport “ we want you to implement this but we’re not telling you how to work it out ,it’s a secret.!

Unless 31/32 37-38 (edited to correct) points is playing to handicap at your course, your expectation of what is normal is too high.

The methodology isn't a secret - there's an overview right there in the manual. However, you would probably need a degree in maths/stats to interpret that into a useful understanding of how it works and what to expect. And you would then need the secret stuff (data, trigger points, etc.) to reproduce the calculations accurately.

 

[clubchamp98]

Unless 31/32 points is playing to handicap at your course, your expectation of what is normal is too high.

The methodology isn't a secret - there's an overview right there in the manual. However, you would probably need a degree in maths/stats to interpret that into a useful understanding of how it works and what to expect. And you would then need the secret stuff (data, trigger points, etc.) to reproduce the calculations accurately.

This is what I just don’t understand.
They have given enough info to make a rough guess.
But the good stuff is a “ black box calculation “
Let’s be honest Most of us don’t need to know ,but the handicap sec should! If they want to of course.

 

[rulefan]

This is what I just don’t understand.
They have given enough info to make a rough guess.
But the good stuff is a “ black box calculation “
Let’s be honest Most of us don’t need to know ,but the handicap sec should! If they want to of course.

Why would they or anyone else want to know the detailed algorithm? They can't do anything about it. Much the same as not 'changing' the CSS tables.

 

[clubchamp98]

Why would they or anyone else want to know the detailed algorithm? They can't do anything about it. Much the same as not 'changing' the CSS tables.

I want to know if a UFO really landed in Roswell not that I can do anything about it.

If we can’t do anything why keep it secret?

 

[Voyager EMH]

I want to know if a UFO really landed in Roswell not that I can do anything about it.

If we can’t do anything why keep it secret?

It did.

But no one found it.

Hence it was an unidentified flying object.

 

[clubchamp98]

It did.

No one found it.

Hence it was an unidentified flying object.

Did it really?

The USA did.

it’s like the PCC some have seen it the majority havnt.

 

[Alan Clifford]

I understand the algorithm for the 9 hole expected score, in the EGA but CONGU may be different, is

- you should calculate 9-hole Score Differential (as before), and
- add the Expected Score for the second 9 holes = (0.52*HI)+1.2

There must have been some "World Beating"™© statisticians involved to think that one up.

Not sure about the rounding though

 

[Backsticks]

I want to know if a UFO really landed in Roswell not that I can do anything about it.

If we can’t do anything why keep it secret?

They have a reason, even if they havent explained what that is either.
And given that the number of golfer who would like to know the PCC calculation and are irked that it isnt public is insignificantly small, they can safely be ignored.

 

[BiMGuy]

They have a reason, even if they havent explained what that is either.
And given that the number of golfer who would like to know the PCC calculation and are irked that it isnt public is insignificantly small, they can safely be ignored.

I’ve not heard anyone outside this forum mention PCC let alone be irked by not knowing how it’s calculated.

I can’t see why any normal golfer would need to know.

 

[IanM]

I’ve not heard anyone outside this forum mention PCC let alone be irked by not knowing how it’s calculated.

I can’t see why any normal golfer would need to know.

The only mention I've heard, is how hard it is to predict, and/or folk calling it the WHS version of CSS

The only reason for Average Joe to need to know would be a desire to demystify.

I've mentioned the changes on here to a few blokes and they just laughed and shrugged shoulders.

 

[Backsticks]

The only mention I've heard, is how hard it is to predict, and/or folk calling it the WHS version of CSS

The only reason for Average Joe to need to know would be a desire to demystify.

I've mentioned the changes on here to a few blokes and they just laughed and shrugged shoulders.

Average Joe isnt even interested in demystification. A minute minority might be.