IanM
Journeyman Pro
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
- Messages
- 12,403
- Location
- Monmouthshire, UK via Guildford!
So, Gemma says what folk have been saying on here for ages! OK.
Giggles.
Giggles.
PCC to be reviewed
- Thread starter rulefan
- Start date
JonnyGutteridge
Newbie
In my last 12 competition rounds, PCC hasn't moved. I've played with crazy flag positions, greens at 12 on the stimp, high winds, rain, hot, cold, and none of those have any effect on the difficulty of the course on any given day? It must be that England Golf rated the course so accurately that PCC isn't required...
It's a load of garbage.
I'm still angry, as a maths guy, that for some reason PCC isn't calculated to 1 decimal place. Why can't the course rating be 71.2 on a normal day, 71.5 when it's tough, 70.9 when it's easy, why does it have to be a wholly inaccurate measure of 71.2, 72.2, 73.2 etc?
It's a load of garbage.
I'm still angry, as a maths guy, that for some reason PCC isn't calculated to 1 decimal place. Why can't the course rating be 71.2 on a normal day, 71.5 when it's tough, 70.9 when it's easy, why does it have to be a wholly inaccurate measure of 71.2, 72.2, 73.2 etc?
Because they arent necessarily inaccurate at all. PCC to a decimal place is useless unless it makes it more accurate. Given the number of players in the one day sample, and the standard deviation of each of those players, accuracy to better than 1 may not be possible. Conditions from morning to afternoon alone for example, might move by 1 or more, making use of a PCC with a decimal place only superficially accurate, but statistically nonsense.
wjemather
Well-known member
Just how precise do you think a calculation that is based on the highly variable scores of (mostly bad) amateur golfers, covering a complete day of inconsistent weather, can be? An integer value is about as precise as it can be.
Foxholer
Blackballed
Because it's an adjustment to your nett/gross score - which is always a whole number!
When was the last time you scored a Gross or Net score that had a decimal value?!
peld
Active member
last week our midweek stableford, they maxxed out the course full and proper.
One guy got 35 points, and 3 got 33 points. i.e. no one shot handicap in a field of about 40.
No PCC
One guy got 35 points, and 3 got 33 points. i.e. no one shot handicap in a field of about 40.
No PCC
Wabinez
Journeyman Pro
wjemather
Well-known member
Assuming Dalmahoy East(?), the Course Rating is about 2 over par, making playing to handicap about 34 points.
Also worth noting that most players should be expected to score a few (~4) strokes over handicap.
peld
Active member
Dalmahoy East is 73.9 / 131 from medal white tees. Par 73 (just shy of 7,000 yards).
Back 9 has a slope of 140!
Foxholer
Blackballed
Max-ing out a course, after a period where it's been 'shortened' can have that sort of effect.
Wabinez
Journeyman Pro
Ok….so 35 is really ‘playing to handicap‘.
in which case, I would say the scores are pretty expected
Springveldt
Well-known member
1 guy out of 40 playing to handicap is expected?
I’d bet under the old CSS that would have definitely moved.
Not a single round of mine last year had a PCC applied to it and there were a couple were I thought if it was CSS it would have been a +1 or even a +2. A comp towards the end of the year, I had 36 points in 25mph winds (35 points is playing to course rating) and there were only 12 players out of 97 that had 35 or better, only 8 had 36 or better. I’m sure under CSS that would have moved.
wjemather
Well-known member
How many play to handicap and whether CSS would have moved are irrelevant (CSS was not based in expected scoring). PCC is calculated on the basis of the proportion of players returning a score in their expected range, which for a scratch player is likely to be something like -1 to +4 or +5 (to handicap, possibly not even this good), with wider ranges for higher handicappers.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Although I agree that PCC does not look to be working as hoped, I think your example may not entirely support it.
12% of the field had 35 or more. However, CSS calcs were not interested in that, but the % of players playing to buffer. So, 34 points for Cat1, 33 for Cat2, 32 for Cat3, etc. So, that % is likely a lot higher than 12%, and I reckon would mean CSS could well be SSS. For example, in a field with 10% Cat 1, 40% Cat 2 and 50% Cat 3 and 4, if 26% to 49% played to buffer, CSS would equal SSS.
Add to that the points you quote are presumably based on Playing Handicaps. If Course Handicaps are higher, as they often are, the points totals would be higher
Foxholer
Blackballed
Indeed, it's %-ages that buffer that was important. That was even visible a couple of times at an old club - where the winner was the only one with 36+ points but lots got 34/35.
Springveldt
Well-known member
Wasn’t aware of the actual calculation but just going from experience when it was that windy and when so little played to handicap the CSS was usually +1. Maybe those days most people missed buffer as well but I didn’t notice since I wasn’t aware that buffer was used in CSS.
Thanks for the explanation.
Bwgan
Hacker
Since WHS came in ive not seen a PCC adjustment at our club..
Today we had a field of 164, 4 broke Par 66, 68, 69 & 69. 3 on Par. Middle of the pack 82nd 9 over.
Will wait for the official results tomorrow, surely PCC would move in this case?
Today we had a field of 164, 4 broke Par 66, 68, 69 & 69. 3 on Par. Middle of the pack 82nd 9 over.
Will wait for the official results tomorrow, surely PCC would move in this case?
rulefan
Tour Winner
Forget par. What is the Course Rating? That's what WHS uses.
Bur were all the players within their expected range?
Bwgan
Hacker
Course Rating 70.9
No idea what expected range is
No idea what expected range is
Foxholer
Blackballed
Very little of that is directly relevant to PCC adjustment, nor was it to any CSS adjustment!
