PCC to be reviewed

[Foxholer]

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]

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.

Surely there will not be an SG analysis?

That must be the job of CONGU.

 

[rulefan]

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.

Yes. It was contrived to indicate a point.

 

[Foxholer]

Surely there will not be an SG analysis?

That must be the job of CONGU.

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]

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

 

[IanMcC]

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?

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!!

 

[Deleted member 30522]

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

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

 

[Deleted member 30522]

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

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

 

[rulefan]

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

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?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

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?

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]

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]

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.

I was responding to a comment about the HOW.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I was responding to a comment about the HOW.

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.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

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.

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]

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).

 

[Deleted member 29109]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

• 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]

...
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?

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]

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"?