PCC to be reviewed

[rulefan]

The authorities have probably done a massive amount of number crunching to determine the 'fine weather' expected scoring patterns. My feeling is that apart from a few qualified golfing mathematicians, golfers in general would not understand the algorithms involved and moreover would not be able to compare the model scoring with the actual on the the day. Certainly not within 20 minutes.
The outcomes suggest that the algorithms need tweaking in order to match the CSS outcomes. But given that a large part of the world never used a CSS type process before I wonder if PCC is needed at all. In area where the conditions are consistent - no effect. Where conditions are more variable - swings and roundabouts.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

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.

Both of these are untrue, the weighting towards lower handicap categories was only slight, and it's not the balance that's been changed per se, but the fact that scoring being affected by adverse, or very good weather, is now almost non-existent because PCC is nowhere near sensitive enough to change and reflect that

 

[Banchory Buddha]

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?

Regardless of how it was all done, it was reviewed and changed over the years, and certainly at our club you had a good guess on how the CSS would move, it worked well on a sliding scale.

Now not only does it not work, but the authorities refuse to even tell you how it works.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

The authorities have probably done a massive amount of number crunching to determine the 'fine weather' expected scoring patterns [1] My feeling is that apart from a few qualified golfing mathematicians, golfers in general would not understand the algorithms involved and moreover would not be able to compare the model scoring with the actual on the the day.[2] Certainly not within 20 minutes.
The outcomes suggest that the algorithms need tweaking in order to match the CSS outcomes. But given that a large part of the world never used a CSS type process before I wonder if PCC is needed at all [3]. In area where the conditions are consistent - no effect. Where conditions are more variable - swings and roundabouts[4].

[1] They clearly haven't
[2] Folks knew a bad day when they saw it, and usually expected a change in CSS to suit
[3] It's clearly needed in the parts of the world where it IS needed, Scotland particularly, rUK to a good degree also
[4] Ah the old it all evens out in the end football mistakes argument? Well if it's wrong it's wrong. If i rip off a tremendous round in appalling weather, but it misses my best 8, I should shrug my shoulders? It's not S&R, it goes against the accuracy claims they make for the new system

 

[sweaty sock]

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?

It was actually very useful, dont get me wrong, I'm an addict and would play no matter what the conditions, so it was always ( and will always be for me) just a matter of fact. But knowing the css would more likely change due to a high proportion of cat 1 golfers etc, and being able to set expectations about where a buffer zone might end up really helped with the mental side in tough conditions.

Currently I feel pcc is more opaque and less responsive. But in reality, 2 shots on 10 percent of scores over a season, is hardly going to effect me. Maybe my better rounds benefitted from a less reactive PCC, maybe as my handicsp os more sensitive to better scores im actually better off?

Without a bit more clarity I'm not really sure...

 

[IanM]

Without a bit more clarity I'm not really sure...

And that in a nutshell is the problem.

 

[rulefan]

Regardless of how it was all done, it was reviewed and changed over the years, and certainly at our club you had a good guess on how the CSS would move, it worked well on a sliding scale.

Now not only does it not work, but the authorities refuse to even tell you how it works.

When I took over as h'cap sec some 20 years ago I manually calculated the CSS for a small field competition. I never bothered again. But I can't remember the tables or formulae being altered since. How often were they done in the last 20 years?
But surely that is exactly what CONGU is asking now. Is it working as intended? If not, why not? Should it be producing different results? Is it producing the results the world wants as opposed to GB&I?

If you knew how it works what difference would it make? Do you know how the numbers in the CSS tables were derived? Did your knowledge influence the changes you refer to?

 

[Banchory Buddha]

When I took over as h'cap sec some 20 years ago I manually calculated the CSS for a small field competition. I never bothered again. But I can't remember the tables or formulae being altered since. How often were they done in the last 20 years?
But surely that is exactly what CONGU is asking now. Is it working as intended? If not, why not? Should it be producing different results? Is it producing the results the world wants as opposed to GB&I?

If you knew how it works what difference would it make? Do you know how the numbers in the CSS tables were derived? Did your knowledge influence the changes you refer to?

So many questions there.

From memory non-counting was a change, certainly changes to buffer zones for different categories wasd the biggest change, when launched it was 2 shots buffer for all.

No CONGU haven't been asking, they (at least Scottish Golf) have repeatedly said it's working fine and meant to be less sensitive than CSS, now an about face due to sustained complaints.

Finally "that's just how it is" may be fine for some, I'm sorry I like to understand why something has happened, the fact SG can't even show you the formula, and that in practice it's been awful; rather points to an issue eh?

 

[Banchory Buddha]

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.

Ah Ian, a man after my own heart. In Scotland with the launch of WHS, and their in-house back end VMS, and the SG App, they also launched a private forum that we could log into and ask questions. The arrogance thereafter has been incredible, obvious flaws are ignored, requests for bug fixes (their VMS isn't too clever at all) get ignored, new features get added but they don't bother to tell you.

And yes we're their customers, but they seem to think that because they have given us this for "free" (forgetting the thousands in subs we pay every year, historically for zero return) then they don't need to listen or respond. Their forum was actually running quite well in the early days, they were flooded with questions, they changed it so it's very hard to find any new comments by anyone and follow a topic (it's not like a normal forum), and that speaks volumes, I think they expected a huge pat on the back, instead they got flack from all sides.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

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.

Really? You wonder? So after your comments above you've literally not even thought about this at all?

 

[rulefan]

Really? You wonder? So after your comments above you've literally not even thought about this at all?

You missed the point. My wondering was whether or not PCC could be geographically variable. I have no issue with the core being reviewed now that there is infinitely more real live data available. But one thing I haven't thought of is any future effects of climate change.

Incidentally my use of the word 'wonder' (to ask yourself questions, to speculate) implies I had thought about it.

 

[rulefan]

So many questions there.

From memory non-counting was a change, certainly changes to buffer zones for different categories wasd the biggest change, when launched it was 2 shots buffer for all.

You didn't explain how the numbers in the CSS tables were derived. Without that how can anyone know the real accuracy of the resultant CSS.
A field of all 5 cappers may produce a different CSS to that of all 6 cappers. Why draw a line between 5 and 6?

 

[Swango1980]

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

I think you are misinterpreting my use of the English language. When I say Course Rating is "factored" in, it was in the context of simply saying it was included within the calculation in the US. I was not making any indication as to how it was factored in (so factored was defined as "included" rather than the mathematical definition of multiplication).

So, the point I was making, a player if not going to play off 3 at one course (course handicap) and 7 at another in the UK, just by accounting for slope. This would only be true in another place of the world, such as the US, but only because they adjust for Course Rating (relative to par)

 

[sunshine]

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.

This is an excellent post. A " like" is not a sufficient acknowledgement.

England Golf and others have produced lots of superficial videos explaining the wonderful WHS, but any explanation is always dumbed down and missing the detail. That may be sufficient for the majority, but golf is quite an obsessive pastime and attracts the kind of people who want to know the technical details.

I note that none of the forum experts have yet provided an explanation of PCC.

 

[rulefan]

I think you are misinterpreting my use of the English language. When I say Course Rating is "factored" in, it was in the context of simply saying it was included within the calculation in the US. I was not making any indication as to how it was factored in (so factored was defined as "included" rather than the mathematical definition of multiplication).

So, the point I was making, a player if not going to play off 3 at one course (course handicap) and 7 at another in the UK, just by accounting for slope. This would only be true in another place of the world, such as the US, but only because they adjust for Course Rating (relative to par)

Understand now

 

[rulefan]

I note that none of the forum experts have yet provided an explanation of PCC.

If you mean the detailed of the algorithm that is because no one has been given one. In the same way that no one has been given the details of how the CSS tables were derived.
At least the main authorities (R&A, USGA, CONGU, Oz) are consistent. But to be fair, the last time I asked EG they hadn't got the details either. I suspect that may be true of other national authorities.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

You didn't explain how the numbers in the CSS tables were derived. Without that how can anyone know the real accuracy of the resultant CSS.
A field of all 5 cappers may produce a different CSS to that of all 6 cappers. Why draw a line between 5 and 6?

It could, but the lines were drawn around the categories, cat 1 has a 1 shot buffer, cat 2 has 2 etc. It least the logic was there.

We couldn't know it was accurate to be fair, but you could usually have a good guess as you were out on the course how tough or normal a day it was. Now we're in the dark entirely.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

You missed the point. My wondering was whether or not PCC could be geographically variable. I have no issue with the core being reviewed now that there is infinitely more real live data available. But one thing I haven't thought of is any future effects of climate change.

Incidentally my use of the word 'wonder' (to ask yourself questions, to speculate) implies I had thought about it.

I don't see why not, there's all sorts of carve outs for different countries. From convos had with SG reps, it feels like what they've tried to do in CONGU is absolutely swallow the whole ethos and change as little as possible, even for eg when that other major point of disagreement - no winter period - is discussed. "Can't be done, not part of WHS". Then we find out that virtually every state in the USA has a winter period where no cards can be submitted, and over varying lengths and months.

I feel in trying to be enthusiastic cheerleaders, they've taken the eye off the ball that they're supposed to be looking out for their members best interests

 

[Banchory Buddha]

If you mean the detailed of the algorithm that is because no one has been given one. In the same way that no one has been given the details of how the CSS tables were derived.
At least the main authorities (R&A, USGA, CONGU, Oz) are consistent. But to be fair, the last time I asked EG they hadn't got the details either. I suspect that may be true of other national authorities.

Those two things are not the same. We didn't know how the tables were drawn up, but we had the tables, and could manually work out the CSS if needs be.

With PCC, we haven't even been given the tables, just a result. Remember your maths exams, show your workings!

 

[BiMGuy]

It could, but the lines were drawn around the categories, cat 1 has a 1 shot buffer, cat 2 has 2 etc. It least the logic was there.

We couldn't know it was accurate to be fair, but you could usually have a good guess as you were out on the course how tough or normal a day it was. Now we're in the dark entirely.

Why do you need to know? Do you not just go and try to shoot your best score?

I can honestly say I have never once thought about what it CSS would be whilst out playing.