PCC to be reviewed

[IanM]

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

And I agree with you entirely. The point I was making (and I am not sure if Rulefan missed this in his early stuff) was that AFTER playing, the chatter in the bar would be about whether CSS would go up for down as folk were interested if they had "buffered" or, if they played well, what their cut "might be." That is different from the "handicap protectors" looking out the window on a rough day and saying "nuts to that, I'll stay indoors!"

My perception is that I had a rough feeling whether to expect a CSS increase or not.... and was generally right.

Now, any correlation between suffering on the course due to conditions and a change in PCC seems harder to gauge. I've played in a few events where the score have been low, the weather appalling and PCC is zero!

My gripe is not whether the maths is right or wrong, but that we used to have a rough idea about what might happen, now the replacement is a mystery. When you ask about it the answers are inconclusive, off topic and even patronising.

The phrase "you don't need to know this" NEVER works when trying to get folk to embrace something new!

 

[Deleted member 30522]

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.

You're struggling, you know you're not in the frame that day, but you're trying to buffer. Every single round I'd be considering the buffer, I'd find not worrying about that a bit alien, in fact I put the loss of a firm target down to my early season struggles, as the goalposts have changed now. Kinda back on track at the end of the year as I got used to a new way of scoring

 

[rulefan]

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!

The tables were provided because computers were few and far between and to all intents were redundant in the last few years. Have you ever known a handicap sec need to do a manual CSS calculation?

Further, who says that CSS is more 'right' or 'wrong' than CSS? Was CSS too extreme? Were low or high cappers treated less 'fairly' (whatever that is). It was never claimed to reproduce the CSS results. Players just accepted 'it is what it is'. If CSS had never existed surely that's what players would do now.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

The tables were provided because computers were few and far between and to all intents were redundant in the last few years. Have you ever known a handicap sec need to do a manual CSS calculation?

Further, who says that CSS is more 'right' or 'wrong' than CSS? Was CSS too extreme? Were low or high cappers treated less 'fairly' (whatever that is). It was never claimed to reproduce the CSS results. Players just accepted 'it is what it is'. If CSS had never existed surely that's what players would do now.

CSS was fine until their last tinker, where they introduced a home and away CSS. Play the course, that's it. I play a lot of opens, I have no doubt it helped keep my handicap down because almost inevitably the away CSS was a shot higher than the home players, and usually 2. It was like upping the buffer from 1 or 2, to 3 or 4 (depending if I was Cat 1/2 at the time).

 

[Foxholer]

Further, who says that CSS is more 'right' or 'wrong' than CSS? Was CSS too extreme? Were low or high cappers treated less 'fairly' (whatever that is). It was never claimed to reproduce the CSS results. Players just accepted 'it is what it is'. If CSS had never existed surely that's what players would do now.

Assuming you actually mean PCC for the italicised bit, I'd suggest 'anyone with a bit of common sense'!

 

[doublebogey7]

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.

England golf must have a copy of the algorithm, otherwise, they would not have been able to contract the software supplier for My EG to include it in the WHS calculations.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

You're struggling, you know you're not in the frame that day, but you're trying to buffer. Every single round I'd be considering the buffer, I'd find not worrying about that a bit alien, in fact I put the loss of a firm target down to my early season struggles, as the goalposts have changed now. Kinda back on track at the end of the year as I got used to a new way of scoring

Sorry but that just doesn’t resonate with me. I try to shoot the best I can whatever. Like I said, I’ve never considered CSS, a buffer or such like whilst playing.

 

[rulefan]

And I agree with you entirely. The point I was making (and I am not sure if Rulefan missed this in his early stuff) was that AFTER playing, the chatter in the bar would be about whether CSS would go up for down as folk were interested if they had "buffered" or, if they played well, what their cut "might be." That is different from the "handicap protectors" looking out the window on a rough day and saying "nuts to that, I'll stay indoors!"

My perception is that I had a rough feeling whether to expect a CSS increase or not.... and was generally right.

Now, any correlation between suffering on the course due to conditions and a change in PCC seems harder to gauge. I've played in a few events where the score have been low, the weather appalling and PCC is zero!

My gripe is not whether the maths is right or wrong, but that we used to have a rough idea about what might happen, now the replacement is a mystery. When you ask about it the answers are inconclusive, off topic and even patronising.

The phrase "you don't need to know this" NEVER works when trying to get folk to embrace something new!

I take your point re AFTER but IMO the emphasis is wrong. It's really down to 'How did everyone else perform according to the expectations of the system?'
I agree that players have got used to how CSS reacts but is the problem that PCC is designed to have a different reaction and we have to get tuned to that?
Obviously I don't know.
As an aside, when refereeing (ie watching other more consistent players) I am able to predict the CSS outcome far better than when I am playing.

 

[IanM]

You've missed my main point.

I agree that players have got used to how CSS reacts but is the problem that PCC is designed to have a different reaction and we have to get tuned to that?
Obviously I don't know.

I do. It's frustrating that the authorities didn't try.

 

[rulefan]

You've missed my main point.


I do. It's frustrating that the authorities didn't try.

The question is 'Who are the authorities?'
The bodies involved specifying the WHS were the USGA, R&A, Golf Australia, Argentina, South Africa, European Golf Association and CONGU. But the GB&I national unions were not directly involved in the formulation of the PCC algorithm.

The following relates to the Australian Daily Scratch Rating (DSR). The precursor to PCC. It was introduced in 2013 so had plenty of time to bed down and be tweaked if/as thought necessary.

"Under the new DSR system, we will assess a current course rating for you each day. This rating will be appropriate to the conditions you actually experienced. GOLF Link will do all of the work and publish the DSR immediately after the scores are processed."

"The formulas (sic) used to assess the DSR are complex as our statisticians have advised that simple formula options are not efficient enough to produce reliable ratings – this was the problem with CCR.

Through GOLF Link, the DSR system will establish each of the following:
The average net score for a field.••
The average handicap of a field.••
The field size.••
The type of competition (Stableford, Par, or Stroke).••
The gender of the competitors.••

Once it has established each of these factors, GOLF Link will compare the ACTUAL average net score on the day with the average net score GOLF Link EXPECTS for this precise field composition. (The EXPECTED average is determined by GOLF Link from millions of prior rounds.) GOLF Link will then determine the DSR by using the difference between what ACTUALLY happened on the day and what was EXPECTED to happen.

 

[IanM]

"The authorities" = any body who had any role in the design, development and deployment of the WHS and associated changes..

No idea why you have posted the stuff in blue. It is waffle about a predessor and proves what I have been saying.

We have an important feature in the management of handicapping that folk don't understand and can't explain.

If it was only pcc that this could be leveled at, folk could probably live with it!

 

[Imurg]

"The authorities" = any body who had any role in the design, development and deployment of the WHS and associated changes..

No idea why you have posted the stuff in blue. It is waffle about a predessor and proves what I have been saying.

We have an important feature in the management of handicapping that was

1) Deployed without effective change management and communication.
And
2) No one appears to be able to explain it to club golfers

I think you need to start a petition..

 

[IanM]

I think you need to start a petition..

Oh yeah, that lot really take feedback

 

[rulefan]

We have an important feature in the management of handicapping that folk don't understand and can't explain.

Which applied to the development and content of the CSS tables. No one has explained how or why those values were assigned.

 

[Foxholer]

The question is 'Who are the authorities?'
The bodies involved specifying the WHS were the USGA, R&A, Golf Australia, Argentina, South Africa, European Golf Association and CONGU. But the GB&I national unions were not directly involved in the formulation of the PCC algorithm.

The following relates to the Australian Daily Scratch Rating (DSR). The precursor to PCC. It was introduced in 2013 so had plenty of time to bed down and be tweaked if/as thought necessary.

"Under the new DSR system, we will assess a current course rating for you each day. This rating will be appropriate to the conditions you actually experienced. GOLF Link will do all of the work and publish the DSR immediately after the scores are processed."

"The formulas (sic) used to assess the DSR are complex as our statisticians have advised that simple formula options are not efficient enough to produce reliable ratings – this was the problem with CCR.

Through GOLF Link, the DSR system will establish each of the following:
The average net score for a field.••
The average handicap of a field.••
The field size.••
The type of competition (Stableford, Par, or Stroke).••
The gender of the competitors.••

Once it has established each of these factors, GOLF Link will compare the ACTUAL average net score on the day with the average net score GOLF Link EXPECTS for this precise field composition. (The EXPECTED average is determined by GOLF Link from millions of prior rounds.) GOLF Link will then determine the DSR by using the difference between what ACTUALLY happened on the day and what was EXPECTED to happen.

Yep. Another 'mess' the Aussies are responsible for (along with Djokovic and Ashes 2021/2)!
And, FWIW, It's WCA that's the precursor to PCC. DSR is SR - WCA as noted in this document https://www.statisticalsolutions.co...14643210/daily_scratch_rating_-_sept_2012.pdf

 

[IanM]

Which applied to the development and content of the CSS tables. No one has explained how or why those values were assigned.

I'm sorry if this appears a bit rude, but you haven't grasped what I've been saying at all.

As I'm apparently incapable of explaining it to you, I'll stop trying.

The original post suggests someone in authority agrees and is starting an investigation.

 

[rulefan]

And, FWIW, It's WCA that's the precursor to PCC. DSR is SR - WCA as noted in this document https://www.statisticalsolutions.co...14643210/daily_scratch_rating_-_sept_2012.pdf

Thanks for that link. I knew it was around somewhere but couldn't track it down. As you say WCA is the precursor to PCC. DSR is 'in effect' CSS.

An interesting point:
The Impact of DSR on Handicaps
While the impact on handicaps is as expected, reducing an increase on a bad condition day, and reducing reduction on a good condition day, the impact is not as significant as may have first been thought.

Assuming it is similar to or the same as PCC now, I wonder how many feel better off with this information.

 

[rulefan]

The original post suggests someone in authority agrees and is starting an investigation.

And that is why I posted it in the first place.

 

[Foxholer]

Thanks for that link. I knew it was around somewhere but couldn't track it down. As you say WCA is the precursor to PCC. DSR is 'in effect' CSS.
...

Correct.

...
An interesting point:
The Impact of DSR on Handicaps
While the impact on handicaps is as expected, reducing an increase on a bad condition day, and reducing reduction on a good condition day, the impact is not as significant as may have first been thought.

Assuming it is similar to or the same as PCC now, I wonder how many feel better off with this information.

Agreed. But, scores that fall into the '12 not considered' apart, I'm puzzled as to, in reality, why that's the case. The supporting graphs also generally support that statement (for 90% of comps WCA is within +/-1 for most; 100% within +/-2) I'm not sure why. There is a chart of 'weightings' that doesn't seem to be explained - or, at least, I don't understand, which may contribute.

I'm also not convinced scores on bad weather days should be bound for the 'not considered 12'. The purpose of WCA is, or at least should be, to 'normalise' good/bad conditions imo.

 

[jim8flog]

At the end of the day if the conditions are so bad it warrants an upwards calculation and you are putting in plenty of scores it is hardly likely that that round will affect your Handicap Index even if it replaces a very low score because the very low score would have been affected anyway.