PCC calculation to be changed.....

[tobybarker]

From one opaque calculation to another....


PCC seems to vary a bit on our course with the weather (it gets very windy here on the island), presumably because of scores take a nosedive when the wind is over 40mph, so I wonder what will happen next? Does it really need changing?

 

[Rlburnside]

From one opaque calculation to another....


PCC seems to vary a bit on our course with the weather (it gets very windy here on the island), presumably because of scores take a nosedive when the wind is over 40mph, so I wonder what will happen next? Does it really need changing?

Out of my last 20 scores only 2 had a pcc adjustment and some of these competitions were played on very windy days. I live in Shetland and we get a lot of wind, what island are you from?

I can’t fathom how pcc is worked out, I would imagine it would be less wind than 40+mph as that’s borderline unplayable.

 

[tobybarker]

Anglesey. I imagine if all your players handle the wind well because they are used to it then the PCC won't change. After all the computer doesn't know it's windy

 

[Rlburnside]

Anglesey. I imagine if all your players handle the wind well because they are used to it then the PCC won't change. After all the computer doesn't know it's windy

That’s not really the case you get the odd one or two who get a decent score when it’s windy but generally most players have worse scores. Is pcc calculated by the field having worse scores than would be expected?

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Out of my last 20 scores only 2 had a pcc adjustment and some of these competitions were played on very windy days. I live in Shetland and we get a lot of wind, what island are you from?

I can’t fathom how pcc is worked out, I would imagine it would be less wind than 40+mph as that’s borderline unplayable.

That's a lot, of the 100 scores showing on my record, I have 5 PCC adjustments, and 3 of those were in opens.

 

[Foxholer]

Isn't there an existing thread about PCC - with an indication that there's a review planned/in progress.
Any of the 'closely involved' folk know what the current situation is?

 

[tobybarker]

That’s not really the case you get the odd one or two who get a decent score when it’s windy but generally most players have worse scores. Is pcc calculated by the field having worse scores than would be expected?

That's the point... Nobody knows

 

[Banchory Buddha]

That's the point... Nobody knows

Exactly this, I've asked SG a number of times what the calculation is, all you get in response is "it's designed to be less sensitive than CSS" . Aye OK, that's obvious, but it's not a good thing, and doesn;t answer the question of how it's worked out. I actually think the local authorities don't know, it's been dictated by the R&A and USGA, and the minions don't have this info

 

[Esteban_M]

Albeit PCC formula is kept secret like the recipe to make Coca Cola, it is not based on "wind" or "weather" conditions but on a statistical computation. As far as I could find it's based on the the number of standard deviations of scores.

So if everybody plays "bad" then the PCC will increase (to compensate). But the bad playing could come from an weather conditions, extremely difficult pin placement or because everybody where partying the night before and were wasted by the time of teeing off.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Albeit PCC formula is kept secret like the recipe to make Coca Cola, it is not based on "wind" or "weather" conditions but on a statistical computation. As far as I could find it's based on the the number of standard deviations of scores.

That's all anyone can find, what's the big secret? Why won't they say how it is arrived at? We all knew how CSS was arrived at, so what's the issue here? Are they worried folks will look at it and rip the methodology to pieces? Certainly the results to date would suggest it's not fit for purpose

 

[rosecott]

That's all anyone can find, what's the big secret? Why won't they say how it is arrived at? We all knew how CSS was arrived at, so what's the issue here? Are they worried folks will look at it and rip the methodology to pieces? Certainly the results to date would suggest it's not fit for purpose

Which "results to date" are those?

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Which "results to date" are those?

results

 

[Alan Clifford]

That's all anyone can find, what's the big secret? Why won't they say how it is arrived at? We all knew how CSS was arrived at, so what's the issue here? Are they worried folks will look at it and rip the methodology to pieces? Certainly the results to date would suggest it's not fit for purpose

"Slope rating" is trade marked. Maybe they couldn't trade mark an algorithm so have kept it secret to stop non-authorised entities from using it? And/or criticize the methodology.

Also, for PCC to actually work, all scores need to be recorded. In England, submitting scores is optional so there is a big contradiction.

 

[Old Skier]

In England, submitting scores is optional so there is a big contradiction.

Scores not returned are subject to penalty scores so yes they are optional but will still be taken into account.

 

[Esteban_M]

Scores not returned are subject to penalty scores so yes they are optional but will still be taken into account.

Who enforces that? I played, amateur/recreational, in different countries at both sides of the ocean and I haven't seen anybody being penalized by not submitting his scorecard.

In local clubs, maybe. But in general competition... rarely.

PCC requires at least 8 cards to be submitted, otherwise the standard deviation computed will be meaningless.
So, of course that with less cards the computation will be less accurate, but still... if 80% of the remaining field (those that returned the card) played "worse" than expected, then the PCC will compute just right. Or not "right", but as expected.

 

[Old Skier]

Who enforces that? I played, amateur/recreational, in different countries at both sides of the ocean and I haven't seen anybody being penalized by not submitting his scorecard.

In local clubs, maybe. But in general competition... rarely.

PCC requires at least 8 cards to be submitted, otherwise the standard deviation computed will be meaningless.
So, of course that with less cards the computation will be less accurate, but still... if 80% of the remaining field (those that returned the card) played "worse" than expected, then the PCC will compute just right. Or not "right", but as expected.

I was referring to competition and gen play cards as players are registered to enter these formats. Nobody in England has to enter casual/recreational cards unless they wish to in which case they must register.

 

[Esteban_M]

I don't know in England, but in Spain even in tournaments (usually Stableford) there is no penalty for not submitting your card.
In Argentina the situation is similar, unless it's detected that you're manipulating your handicap somehow.

Our software tells us that in tournaments, from a field of 100 players, at least 15% don't submit they cards. What's funny is that the "largest" or more important the tournament is (36/54 holes), the more cards are submitted.

 

[Old Skier]

I don't know in England, but in Spain even in tournaments (usually Stableford) there is no penalty for not submitting your card.
In Argentina the situation is similar, unless it's detected that you're manipulating your handicap somehow.

Our software tells us that in tournaments, from a field of 100 players, at least 15% don't submit they cards. What's funny is that the "largest" or more important the tournament is (36/54 holes), the more cards are submitted.

We twigged very early that the World Handicap System wasn’t a WHS.

 

[rulefan]

I don't know in England, but in Spain even in tournaments (usually Stableford) there is no penalty for not submitting your card.
In Argentina the situation is similar, unless it's detected that you're manipulating your handicap somehow.

Our software tells us that in tournaments, from a field of 100 players, at least 15% don't submit they cards. What's funny is that the "largest" or more important the tournament is (36/54 holes), the more cards are submitted.

Is there an English language version of the WHS manual available in Spain and/or Argentina?
Can you provide an English translation of the Rule which indicates that an individual's competition score need not be returned.
What does Rule 7.1b(i) say?

 

[Alan Clifford]

Is there an English language version of the WHS manual available in Spain and/or Argentina?
Can you provide an English translation of the Rule which indicates that an individual's competition score need not be returned.
What does Rule 7.1b(i) say?

There might be. If Spain and Cyprus are both in the European Golf Association, I have a Cyprus version in English. Assuming that there is consistency throughout the EGA.