PCC to be reviewed

[Crow]

Not in the slightest - it's an accurate representation of not just the handicaps of that demographic at my club, but also my wife's club.

In general, seniors have handicaps that are increasing, i.e. they are declining golfers. 90% of our senior ladies went into WHS with less than 10 scores on their record, mostly from 2018 and 2019. Most of them have not submitted enough qualifying rounds since then (because they often don't want to commit to playing a full 9 or 18) to push these out of the most recent 20. In many cases, all recent scores are more than 5 over handicap, and almost none are counting. No ladies were flagged for review.

We do not know the exact formulae to be able to calculate it ourselves, but we do know the methodology of how PCC works.

If the senior ladies (or any other group with non-representative handicaps) go out in a competition on a fine day and play badly compared to their incorrect handicaps and the PCC goes up by 3 shots accordingly, does the club have the ability to correct the PCC back to zero so that it reflects the actual playing conditions rather than the out of kilter handicaps?

 

[Foxholer]

If the senior ladies (or any other group with non-representative handicaps) go out in a competition on a fine day and play badly compared to their incorrect handicaps and the PCC goes up by 3 shots accordingly, does the club have the ability to correct the PCC back to zero so that it reflects the actual playing conditions rather than the out of kilter handicaps?

I very much doubt it...Otherwise that would be likely to happen in many instances - by 'old style' managd clubs.

 

[wjemather]

If the senior ladies (or any other group with non-representative handicaps) go out in a competition on a fine day and play badly compared to their incorrect handicaps and the PCC goes up by 3 shots accordingly, does the club have the ability to correct the PCC back to zero so that it reflects the actual playing conditions rather than the out of kilter handicaps?

No. PCC cannot be adjusted based on a subjective assessment. Handicap committees can only try and ensure their members' handicaps reflect their current ability - which is very difficult if they haven't been putting scores in.

 

[Foxholer]

No. PCC cannot a adjusted based on a subjective assessment. Handicap committees can only try and ensure their members' handicaps reflect their current ability - which is very difficult if they haven't been putting scores in.

Do you know of any Handicap Secretary that has dared to adjust handicaps of those that 'caused the abberation'?

The H'Cap sec at my first club - who was pretty obsessed with keeping handicaps under control, to avoid the (Resort) club getting a bad name in Open events that quite a few played, laughed when we discussed the group of similar types at the club. His statement was that there was little point, as they rarely, if ever, competed in comps (the 'cause' of the issue) and, relative to the rest in the groups they played in socially, none were getting worse any faster than others. 'And besides...I wouldn't dare!' were his exact words!

With PCC being calculated for ALL scores of the day cf only Comp ones, that's changed - though averaging does reduce the effect for non-competitors somewhat.

 

[wjemather]

Do you know of any Handicap Secretary that has dared to adjust handicaps of those that 'caused the abberation'?

No, not aware of any. It's difficult to see how anything could justifiably be done on the basis of a couple of scores anyway - the CONGU line has consistently been to encourage more scores to be submitted and let the system work.

 

[Foxholer]

No, not aware of any. It's difficult to see how anything could justifiably be done on the basis of a couple of scores anyway - the CONGU line has consistently been to encourage more scores to be submitted and let the system work.

That H'Cap Sec had an amazing knowledge of the entire club's real 'current' levels - at every level. He surprised me with his knowledge of our swindle's scores and attitudes within it (both significant improvers such as I was for a season, and significant drifters, as were a several older members). His main concern was with the 'gamblers' swindle, many of whom were near Cat 1 and also played Opens, both Scratch and Handicap.
I agree with the encouragement of submitting scores. The group I play with (when I can) have used a WHS/Slope style system for many years - using every score.

 

[rulefan]

The group I play with (when I can) have used a WHS/Slope style system for many years - using every score.

How did they determine a Slope factor?

 

[YandaB]

If the senior ladies (or any other group with non-representative handicaps) go out in a competition on a fine day and play badly compared to their incorrect handicaps and the PCC goes up by 3 shots accordingly, does the club have the ability to correct the PCC back to zero so that it reflects the actual playing conditions rather than the out of kilter handicaps?

I believe that section 5.6/2 would possibly allow it (the make-up of the field in a competition being played on the day is significantly different from the make-up of the players participating in general play rounds on the same day). However:
1) I can't see how you do it
2) What constitutes significant?
3) Will there be more than 8 other acceptable scores to make another PCC?
Reading the next part (5.6/3) it would seem to me that the competition get a special PCC and everyone else gets the daily PCC which still includes the competition scores, so no change!

 

[Foxholer]

How did they determine a Slope factor?

Initially, it was a hybrid of best 8 of last 20 against SSS. But as soon as Slope was available, that was used. Several courses were involved too. It didn't need to be absolutely accurate - as long as it was consistent within the group just like many swindles have swindle handicaps that are not particularly related to official Congu ones.
I remember the rule of thumb we applied, elsewhere, to American visitors of adding 15- 20% to their HIs if in 'mixed' groups at other courses years earlier. It worked pretty well, but obviously is now superceded by WHS.

 

[Crazyface]

I'm surprised at the figure of 25% of scores are general rounds. I love the system and being able to put all my scores in as counting towards my HC. As does my wife. We try and enter all our rounds in. Hence I've got horrendous scores posted but they don't count so I don't care. We could give player a push at ours to get them to do the same as everyone has to go to the pro shop prior to playing and they could ask players if they want to enter their scores. I think I'll suggest the idea

 

[Backache]

Must admit I generally have little interest in filling in a card on social rounds and am probably not going to start.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I was wondering if it had changed already this year actually, as while last year we had almost no adjustments even when we would have expected in the past from CSS and none by more that a shot, this year in my club we have had 6 qualify competitions, and one was increased by 1 shot, another by 2.

I was suspecting the same, still none at my home club, but my away club had two of the first four medals adjusted.

I think the authorities have tweaked this, but after their pronouncements about how well it was working last year, possibly don't want egg on their face having to admit they got it wrong

 

[IanM]

Got it wrong? No, it just that golfers haven't read the manual properly!

 

[Foxholer]

I was suspecting the same, still none at my home club, but my away club had two of the first four medals adjusted.

I think the authorities have tweaked this, but after their pronouncements about how well it was working last year, possibly don't want egg on their face having to admit they got it wrong

I don't believe that's what has happened at all! I'd put the couple of adjustments (1 shot?) down to 'early in the season' syndrome! Especially if it's at a Scottish course, where weather and ground conditions can be pretty dire early in the season.

 

[Backsticks]

Has there been any analysis on how handicaps overall have moved over the last year. If handicaps were 'high' due to the change to WHS, and there has been a settling, it might have depressed the incidence of corrections last year, and simply be working more as designed this year with handicaps better aligned with WHS.

 

[Crow]

https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/...stem-playing-conditions-calculation-scrutiny/

 

[Foxholer]

https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/...stem-playing-conditions-calculation-scrutiny/

Seems reasonable - but could well knobble (another) part of the 'World'HS somewhat.

 

[Swango1980]

https://www.nationalclubgolfer.com/...stem-playing-conditions-calculation-scrutiny/

Sounds like Gemma Hunter is now officially confirming she has the same concerns people in these forums have been expressing for some time.

 

[Region3]

I know PCC is secret, and the old CSS was based around the number of players hitting buffer or better (or something like that), but last weekend 104 players entered our medal. 4 had nett par of better (winner nett 70) and the PCC was zero, yet there are multiple rounds in my last 20 that had a PCC of 2 applied when scoring was pretty decent.

I know the theory behind it is sound but a part of me wishes they’d bin it. It would only make a different of a few tenths at most per round where it would be applied but at least we’d know where we stood.

 

[Jimaroid]

From that article this is eyebrow raising

We have looked at our data and we’ve identified that, around about 92 per cent of the time, the PCC remains at zero, which is far, far, far too conservative than what we need it to be.

In the 90th percentile to have no effect is completely broken.