PCC to be reviewed

[Deleted member 3432]

How do we know when we don't know how PCC is calculated because they won't publish it..?

Because they tell us that is the case.

Got to laugh when windy conditions are factored into CR and Slope, every course in Cumbria has been a cut and paste job for CR I don't think there has been a single change from the old SSS to new CR in either parkland or links courses. For example our rated mens tees were SSS 70.4, 71.8 and 72.6. Guess what, under WHS the CR is exactly the same

 

[IanM]

Because of the words used in Rule 5.6 when describing the WHS algorithm as opposed to the tables demonstrating the UHS bias.

Translation?

 

[wjemather]

How do we know when we don't know how PCC is calculated because they won't publish it..?

The vast majority of people would be none the wiser is the calculations were published in full - they would probably more confused, if anything. For those that would understand the mathematics, there is enough of an overview of the calculations published in the Rules of Handicapping.

 

[wjemather]

Got to laugh when windy conditions are factored into CR and Slope, every course in Cumbria has been a cut and paste job for CR I don't think there has been a single change from the old SSS to new CR in either parkland or links courses. For example our rated mens tees were SSS 70.4, 71.8 and 72.6. Guess what, under WHS the CR is exactly the same

And nor should there be. The USGA's Course and Slope Rating system was adopted by CONGU long before WHS and was used to calculate SSS. As such, the SSS should simply have been equal to the rounded Course Rating.

 

[Bdill93]

This is never how it has worked. And how could it, since "playing conditions being tough" is entirely subjective.

CSS was heavily skewed by the scoring of a small number of lower handicap players based on an unrealistic expectation that they can be expected to return scores within a stroke of their handicap. Extensive analysis has shown that even elite (scratch or better) players should be expected to return scores up to two or three strokes worse than that. If UHS had accounted for this, buffers would have been much greater and CSS would have moved about as regularly as PCC does.

PCC is much more balanced in how it accounts for scores from across the handicap range, and is orders of magnitude more realistic about players expected scoring ability.

It doesnt take a genius to notice worse playing conditions though. I have played in far worse this year, high wind, rain, boggy ground all sorts! Ive seen whole comp fields ranging from 4 to 30+ come in with less than 30 points and no PCC made...

Makes no sense at all.

 

[Imurg]

Given the number of times PCC doesn't kick in could it be that the calculation is just too complex and too many things need to fall into place for it to operate?
The fact that it's being reviewed suggests so....
After all, if it's going to kick in so few times there seems little point in having it.

 

[Deleted member 3432]

And nor should there be. The USGA's Course and Slope Rating system was adopted by CONGU long before WHS and was used to calculate SSS. As such, the SSS should simply have been equal to the rounded Course Rating.

So you are saying prevalent windy conditions were factored in under the old system then a CSS was applied on top of this?

 

[wjemather]

It doesnt take a genius to notice worse playing conditions though. I have played in far worse this year, high wind, rain, boggy ground all sorts! Ive seen whole comp fields ranging from 4 to 30+ come in with less than 30 points and no PCC made...

Makes no sense at all.

Remember: there is a difference between "playing conditions" and "scoring conditions", and 36 points is not "playing to handicap".

 

[Bdill93]

Remember: there is a difference between "playing conditions" and "scoring conditions", and 36 points is not "playing to handicap".

Nope, 38 would be at my place.

Your arguments are rubbish though. PCC needs addressing - its pretty obvious.

 

[wjemather]

So you are saying prevalent windy conditions were factored in under the old system then a CSS was applied on top of this?

Essentially, yes. However that is qualified by SSS only accounting for how it would affect scoring for the model scratch golfer, not everyone else (i.e. there was no Slope adjustment).

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Essentially, yes. However that is qualified by SSS only accounting for how it would affect scoring for the model scratch golfer, not everyone else (i.e. there was no Slope adjustment).

Okay I get that bit.

The USGA's Course and Slope Rating system was adopted by CONGU long before WHS. Why on earth have we gone down the road of WHS if we were using the USGA system. Doesn't make any sense other than the suits at the Home Unions being on an ego trip?

 

[Backache]

Any idea how they could do that? The calculation of a handicap is a precise mathematical exercise (albeit based upon an element of spurious data in the form of the slope rating), but any adjustment for conditions would surely be somewhat arbitrary.

A personal opinion is that Slope rating is one of the better bits of the WHS and I don't see why it's any more spurious than course rating or SSS before that.

 

[wjemather]

Nope, 38 would be at my place.

Your arguments are rubbish though. PCC needs addressing - its pretty obvious.

Looking through your club results, I'm not seeing any comps where "whole... fields... come in with less than 30 points" and can see several days when PCC increased (or decreased). Indeed, on the 4th December, 35 points was the best returned in the comp and PCC was 3. Perhaps you are mistaken?

 

[Bdill93]

Looking through your club results, I'm not seeing any comps where "whole... fields... come in with less than 30 points" and can see several days when PCC increased (or decreased). Indeed, on the 4th December, 35 points was the best returned in the comp and PCC was 3. Perhaps you are mistaken?

Well done on finding a comp where someone shot over 30...

Where are you seeing the PCC there?

 

[Maninblack4612]

Everyone knows that a 3 handicap at one course is maybe 7 at another.

That's what the slope rating is for.

 

[wjemather]

Well done on finding a comp where someone shot over 30...

Where are you seeing the PCC there?

You're being a bit silly now - many (if not most) of your clubs Stableford comps are won with scores of 40 pts or higher.
33 pts is the lowest winning score I found doing a quick scan through results on HDID (on 27 November, again with a PCC of 3). Similarly, other poor scoring days have also seen PCCs of 2 or 3.

As handicap chair, I have access to the England Golf WHS portal, so can easily find the PCCs.

 

[Imurg]

Well done on finding a comp where someone shot over 30...

Where are you seeing the PCC there?

Look at our results and you're only getting about 55% of cards going in...the rest are casual rounds...

 

[Brechin balata]

That's what the slope rating is for.

Correct ?

 

[rulefan]

Okay I get that bit.

The USGA's Course and Slope Rating system was adopted by CONGU long before WHS. Why on earth have we gone down the road of WHS if we were using the USGA system. Doesn't make any sense other than the suits at the Home Unions being on an ego trip?

The only part of the USGA system that CONGU used was that for Course Rating. This was gradually introduced by the then EGU (ie the men's part of what is now the gender merged England Golf) in about 2013. All other parts of CONGU (ie Wales, Scotland, Ireland and England women had rated using USGA for many years before. The SSS in England was similar to the USGA system but arguably lacking in some details and sophistication.
The USGA rating was only done for the scratch player. As there was no 'bogey' rating there was no Slope. In fact some courses were bogey rated specifically for US tourists but never used by CONGU.
Slope only arrived in GB&I with the introduction of WHS

 

[rulefan]

So you are saying prevalent windy conditions were factored in under the old system then a CSS was applied on top of this?

My recollection is that prevailing wind was not built in to the EGU SSS. But it's a long time since I did an SSS rating.