PCC to be reviewed

[IanM]

Another symptom of the authorities not bothering to engage with golfers in the development of WHS. The WHS Police needed to explain PCC as a concept, (they did) and give a working explanation of what you will expect to see and how to work it out. (approx) Saying - "it's big -boys' maths, don't worry your wee head aboot it" doesn't constitute adequate explanation or engagement.

I suspect that most golfers had a "perception/feel" of when CSS would change under the old system. I also suspect that they expected a similar "feel" for changes to PCC. Given the definition of it on the website I am sympathetic to that view.

So, when there are extensive occurrences where players "expected" (rightly or wrongly) a change (up or down) and one didn't happen, they question it.

It seems to me that the "rules folk" on here continually defend PCC as a process (hard to do as the maths isn't published ) and with some really unconnected explanations (see above) without appreciating what club golfers are saying.

Gadzooks, the Original Post seems to say that they Authorities are starting to recognise the issue and are looking into it!!

BUT, it also says, Iain Forsyth, Scottish Golf’s chief commercial officer, feels that the response to WHS has been “pretty positive overall”. I wonder what he means by "overall?"

I've only had 3 months off work.... I wonder if I should write and offer my services? Not to make any changes, but to help them explain to their customers! Yes, customers.

 

[Swango1980]

That's what the slope rating is for.

Do you not mean Course Rating? I can't see a golfer ever having a course handicap of 3 at one course and a course handicap of 7 at another course. Not in the UK anyway, the USA would be different but only because they also factor in the Course Rating to get the course handicap.

 

[rulefan]

the USA would be different but only because they also factor in the Course Rating to get the course handicap.

The USA factor in (Course Rating - Par). Not quite the same.

 

[Foxholer]

They are not PCCs - they are merely transposed CSS calculations. Chances are, if they were able to be recalculated using PCC, most would be zero.

And that's the issue!
CSS +/- 1 very likely to have PCC of zero...OK. But CSS of 3 (or RO) still seems likely to have PCC of zero! So no allowance for the apparent tough conditions!

 

[rulefan]

I believe the PCC was lifted from Australia. I wonder if the PCC algorithm needs tuning to allow for the probably more variable weather and course conditions that prevail here.

 

[Ethan]

It should be easy enough to identify a representative data set, say the median differential for players of a certain handicap range, and then set a correction factor proportional to how discrepant the scores are. You can turn up or down the magnitude of that correction if it is having too little or too much effect.

 

[Foxholer]

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

Wasn't SSS a whole number? If so (and i'm almost certain that it is), that would suggest a very good reason why they are exactly the same! They were CRs not SSS!

 

[Foxholer]

I believe the PCC was lifted from Australia. I wonder if the PCC algorithm needs tuning to allow for the probably more variable weather and course conditions that prevail here.

It should already be allowing for that. After all, that's its entire reason for existence!

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Wasn't SSS a whole number?

Yes, rounded up to nearest whole number for scoring purposes.
I know my old course tried all sort of things to get SSS increased by .2 which would have been a full shot increase, 70.4 to 70.6

 

[rosecott]

Yes, rounded up to nearest whole number for scoring purposes.
I know my old course tried all sort of things to get SSS increased by .2 which would have been a full shot increase, 70.4 to 70.6

Why would they feel that to be necessary?

 

[rosecott]

It seems to me that the "rules folk" on here continually defend PCC as a process (hard to do as the maths isn't published ) and with some really unconnected explanations (see above) without appreciating what club golfers are saying.

Is it just people who post on here who get uptight over PCC? I can't say I've had a deluge of members questioning it.

Perhaps we have forgotten that the ordinary member did not have access to the tables that were used to set CSS. On the odd occasion when I was asked how CSS was calculated, I used to produce a slip of paper with the following printed on it:

"Standard Scratch Score (SSS) is the score a scratch player would be expected to score under normal mid-season conditions.

Competition Scratch Score (CSS) springs from the proportion of players in a competition achieving buffer or better.

For a course with Par 72 and SSS 72, the approximate proportions and resultant CSS are:


46% and over = CSS 71 (37 points)
23 to 45% = CSS 72 (36 points)
16 to 22% = CSS 73 (35 points)
10 to 15% = CSS 74 (34 points)
6 to 9% = CSS 75 (33 points)


Less than 6% =CSS 75 (33 points) (Reductions Only)"

When they read that, they went away happy.

 

[Canary Kid]

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.

I wasn’t comparing it to any rating methodology in the past … I was merely pointing out that it is inherently spurious. This is because it cannot be accurately measured. Distance, time, speed etc. are factors can be be accurately measured, whereas the difficulty of a golf course is not. One can use parameters that assist with an assessment of how difficult a course may be but, ultimately, any assessment contains a significant element of opinion. The fact that players disagree on whether course A is more difficult than course B proves this.

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Why would they feel that to be necessary?

Idiots running the committee thought a SSS of 71 as opposed to 70 thought it would perceive the course to be more highly regarded.

All they achieved by eventually moving a couple of tees back was to make it harder for short hitters and seniors as the tees were moved back on uphill holes. No real change for the better player.

I'd left by then, they had done another couple of things that were Mickey Mouse in my eyes and not looked back since despite it being a couple of miles from my house.

 

[IanM]

So, to clarify

Is it just people who post on here who get uptight over PCC? I can't say I've had a deluge of members questioning it.

Perhaps we have forgotten that the ordinary member did not have access to the tables that were used to set CSS. On the odd occasion when I was asked how CSS was calculated, I used to produce a slip of paper with the following printed on it:

"Standard Scratch Score (SSS) is the score a scratch player would be expected to score under normal mid-season conditions.

Competition Scratch Score (CSS) springs from the proportion of players in a competition achieving buffer or better.

For a course with Par 72 and SSS 72, the approximate proportions and resultant CSS are:


46% and over = CSS 71 (37 points)
23 to 45% = CSS 72 (36 points)
16 to 22% = CSS 73 (35 points)
10 to 15% = CSS 74 (34 points)
6 to 9% = CSS 75 (33 points)


Less than 6% =CSS 75 (33 points) (Reductions Only)"

When they read that, they went away happy.

My apologies, I can't see how that explains PCC.....

Ok, point taken. Folk got used to CSS.and the chart is an illustration.

In my experience, many players now shrug their shoulders and ask "crikey, how was pcc zero today?"

Regardless of what is behind that, it needs some management

 

[Backache]

I wasn’t comparing it to any rating methodology in the past … I was merely pointing out that it is inherently spurious. This is because it cannot be accurately measured. Distance, time, speed etc. are factors can be be accurately measured, whereas the difficulty of a golf course is not. One can use parameters that assist with an assessment of how difficult a course may be but, ultimately, any assessment contains a significant element of opinion. The fact that players disagree on whether course A is more difficult than course B proves this.

We are probably talking at cross purposes but my point was in reference to your comment about handicap being a precise mathematical calculation. The basis of the calculation is the course rating which has as far as I can see a similar degree of subjectivity as a slope calculation. Though of the courses I have played most ratings and slopes seem reasonable.

 

[rulefan]

Wasn't SSS a whole number?

Yes. When USGA was used it was simply rounded.

 

[Swango1980]

The USA factor in (Course Rating - Par). Not quite the same.

Yeah, that is what I said. The US factor in the Course Rating within the course handicap calculation, we do not.

 

[sweaty sock]

So, to clarify



My apologies, I can't see how that explains PCC.....

Ok, point taken. Folk got used to CSS.and the chart is an illustration.

In my experience, many players now shrug their shoulders and ask "crikey, how was pcc zero today?"

Regardless of what is behind that, it needs some management

I was interested and wanted to see the tables, took 20 seconds search on the congu website. Then a 1 minute talk with my handicap sec who gave me the tables. Looking at the tables for 20 minutes gave me a workable understanding of how the field composition and scoring would effect the css. I understood to a working level the same day I asked....

 

[rulefan]

Yeah, that is what I said. The US factor in the Course Rating within the course handicap calculation, we do not.

But factoring in a figure of about 70 (CR) has a far greater significance than a figure of about +/- 3 (CR-Par).

But how does that affect a golfer having a course handicap of 3 at one course and a course handicap of 7 at another course. Without Par being involved, CR alone doesn't make sense

 

[rulefan]

I was interested and wanted to see the tables, took 20 seconds search on the congu website. Then a 1 minute talk with my handicap sec who gave me the tables. Looking at the tables for 20 minutes gave me a workable understanding of how the field composition and scoring would effect the css. I understood to a working level the same day I asked....

How often was your perception different to the value of the CSS adjustment? Did it ever affect your play?

Whilst the tables told you how the adjustment calculation worked there has never been any justification for how the table values were determined.
Why were fixed categories used as the break points? Why is a 5 capper different to a 6 or 13? Why is a %age of 11-16% or 7-10% used. How were those figures determined?
I have never seen the table entries queried. Why not? Why should PCC be different?