PCC algorithm changin

Steven Rules said:
No. None whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Actually, I have thought of a thought.

We are told that this change - on a population-wide average - will increase the number of rounds to which a PCC is applied from 10% of rounds to 15% of rounds. In a player's most recent 20 rounds (i.e. the ones that matter for handicap calculation purposes) there will now be - on a population-wide average - three rounds instead of two in the most recent 20 that have a PCC applied. (i.e. one extra round out of twenty - on a population-wide average). I do acknowledge some of the posts here that indicate, for their particular course and handicap record, a higher number than the average. Fair enough. In fact, I totally expect that 50% of individual circumstances will be higher than the average.

We are further told that this mystical PCC change relates in some way to a hidden rounding methodology. Given that we are talking about rounding errors, I would expect that the change would amount to no more than one stroke (i.e. it might take the PCC from 0 to 1, or from 1 to 2, or from 2 to 3 etc. It won't jump the PCC from 0 to 3.

So, for one round in 20 - on a population-wide average - we are talking about a one stroke difference resulting from this recently implemented (today?) PCC change. If that one stroke happened to be in the top 8 of 20 (i.e. 40% of the time - on a population-wide average), then that would affect the overall HI calculation by 1/8 or 0.125. For the other 60% of the time - on a population-wide average - that one stroke will make no difference at all. Depending on individual circumstances, that 0.125 might get rounded to either 0.1 or 0.2. i.e. The impact on an individual's HI across 20 rounds might be 0.1 or 0.2.

One stroke in 20 rounds is what we are talking about here - on a population-wide average. That is one ball in a penalty area, or a chip out from behind a tree, or less than a lost ball, or less than a ball out of bounds, or sinking a four footer (or two footer) instead of missing it, or avoiding just one extra three putt - once in 20 rounds.

My thought is that I would gain more value (strokes gained) by spending the equivalent time practising my putting on the bedroom floor than following what people think about this PCC calculation change.
 
Steven Rules said:
My thought is that I would gain more value (strokes gained) by spending the equivalent time practising my putting on the bedroom floor than following what people think about this PCC calculation change.
Click to expand...

Correct.

None of the folk I play golf with at the club or elsewhere, go anywhere Internet Golf Forums, they are ambivalent about the whole thing. They laugh at the foibles of the WHS and get on with playing golf. I know of a group that have stopped playing in comps and putting in cards and administer their own handicaps like a society. That's an extreme example, but the majority just key in the numbers and get on with it.

There's too much focus on comps, scores and handicaps... many just play for fun because they enjoy it.
 
I was thinking similar. Even for my 8 from 25, its probably 2 counting cards on average that would be affected. By a probably average of three shot. Which would mean I would be 0.4 shots higher even if there were no PCC element at all.
So not a big deal. You can see why its probably an afterthought in the greater WHS system, as statistically having minimal or no impact on handicaps or results.
 
I don't see any reason to assume that the potential for a larger number of PCC-impacted rounds necessarily means they will always be positively increased ratings, some adjustments could go the other way.
 
They could, but I think they can only be negative by one, but positive by up to 3. And weather is likely to be the main cause for movement, which will be up rather than down. All or our corrections have been plus not negative. So I would say its going to be an average of positive for everyone, always. Negative being rarer, smaller, and swamped by the positives overall.
 
Steven Rules said:
My thought is that I would gain more value (strokes gained) by spending the equivalent time practising my putting on the bedroom floor than following what people think about this PCC calculation change.
Click to expand...
Especially when it really only affects the oldest of the last 20 or is a decent (one of the 8 counting) score anyway.
People generally - and Brits particularly - aren't keen on change. I've worked in IT for long enough, in enough countries, to agree with that old adage. Finding something that they were content with in a previous system that works differently in a new system gives them something to whinge about. I have a theory about the psychology behind it, but it's not complementary, so won't expand. We all have our own foibles, I certainly do, that sometimes are pro-team and at other times have to be suppressed for the good of of a project/strategy!
In the case of CSS/PCC, I'm believe that, having decided to play, it's best to simply accept the calc and get on with playing Golf!
 
salfordlad said:
I don't see any reason to assume that the potential for a larger number of PCC-impacted rounds necessarily means they will always be positively increased ratings, some adjustments could go the other way.
Click to expand...
Agreed, But if you check back on any set of results, I'm pretty sure you'll find that the vast majority are upward adjustments - i.e. scores were poorer than expected.
 
Backsticks said:
Dicks seem similar to mine. So not a one off.
It may not have been the goal, but 30% feels about right, but I wasnt judging closely. Normally wind is what moves it, and you can guess even when playing that it will apply.
Click to expand...
No, but definetly outliers. Most clubs seeing very litle movement. I've 108 scores under WHS, 8 have had an adjusment (all up), and 6 of those were in opens where scores tend to go higher anyway.
 
Backsticks said:
Wow, OK, my mistake. That would take me up to half of rounds having a PCC !!! A few days were windy, and I expected it to move as it did. But half of rounds having a PCC doesnt sound right at all.

As discussed in other threads, some clubs seem to have a lot of trouble with lots of very big winning scores Which seems to be a problem in itself, but is that also spoiling the PCC ?
Our scores for wins, and handicaps in general are the same as before WHS. And 30% of rounds having a correction by PCC is similar I think to what we eould have had in CSS days. So the system is working for us.
This change might now harm something that is not a problem for us, and presumably plenty of other clubs.
The ones with scores of net 60 and 48 stableford, sound like the problem. Of course PCC wont adjust in that case . But that isnt PCCs problem. That is something else.
Click to expand...
So are you saying that 1/3rd of your rounds have a PCC involved?
Unless you are at a course particularly prone to seriously variable weather, that seems pretty much excessive - to me!
I certainly wouldn't want to play that sort of course every weekend! Getting 'beaten up' by a difficult course is ok though. That's the appropriate level of masochism required to declare myself a golfer though!
 
Banchory Buddha said:
No, but definetly outliers. Most clubs seeing very litle movement. I've 108 scores under WHS, 8 have had an adjusment (all up), and 6 of those were in opens where scores tend to go higher anyway.
Click to expand...

Thought I would resurrect this thread as I just noticed a PCC of 1 on 5 of my last 20, dating from 21st August - no open comps were involved.

P.S I have 530 scores in my WHS record, 236 played since the start of WHS.
 
rosecott said:
Thought I would resurrect this thread as I just noticed a PCC of 1 on 5 of my last 20, dating from 21st August - no open comps were involved.

P.S I have 530 scores in my WHS record, 236 played since the start of WHS.
Click to expand...
I've slowed somewhat, only at 116 WHS scores now (I assume you have to be putting in quite a few GP scores as well, that's an incredible number already?)

Of those extra 8 scores, one adjustment of +3, and it was the only open. Now I suspect something has changed, because this was a small field inter-club singles stableford, only 44 scores but 4 of those playing to handicap or better. That's not enough to trigger changes earlier in WHS history, especially a full 3 shots, so soemthing has gone on.
 
Banchory Buddha said:
I've slowed somewhat, only at 116 WHS scores now (I assume you have to be putting in quite a few GP scores as well, that's an incredible number already?)

Of those extra 8 scores, one adjustment of +3, and it was the only open. Now I suspect something has changed, because this was a small field inter-club singles stableford, only 44 scores but 4 of those playing to handicap or better. That's not enough to trigger changes earlier in WHS history, especially a full 3 shots, so soemthing has gone on.
Click to expand...
Last week at West Byfleet I had a PCC of 2...no obvious reason for there being a load of really poor scores submitted by players that day as course was quiet, at least it was in the afternoon; was in decent nick, and weather was fine. I was much surprised. I asked my club’s golf manager if he had any idea why that might have happened. He wasn’t aware of my changes to PCC calc…just poor scores he suggested. Maybe…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Back pin = front tee / front pin = back tee: Handicapping requirement for consistent hole length?
2 3
Replies
58
Views
3K
jim8flog
jim8flog
R
WHS Score Differential - help please ?
Replies
3
Views
5K
Backsticks
Backsticks
J
At what point are you willing to upgrade your equipment?
2 3
Replies
55
Views
2K
nickjdavis
N
V
Hoarding/Flipping golf clubs
2 3
Replies
40
Views
2K
rulie
R
N
What Would You Change About the WHS?
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
8K
Deleted member 36483
D
Top