PCC to be reviewed

[Foxholer]

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"?

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]

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.

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]

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).

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]

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.

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

 

[rulefan]

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]

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

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.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

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 ??‍

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.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

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

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

 

[Deleted member 30522]

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

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

 

[Deleted member 30522]

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

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

 

[rulefan]

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

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.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

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.

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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...

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]

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...

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

 

[rulefan]

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...

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