PCC to be reviewed

[Deleted member 30522]

Utter twaddle!

"Reviewing something is not an admission of a problem, simply a 'We'll look into' as we can see there's a concern! "

I'm not followin your logic at all

 

[Foxholer]

"Reviewing something is not an admission of a problem, simply a 'We'll look into' as we can see there's a concern! "

I'm not followin your logic at all

I'll try to help you understand....

'admission of a problem' means 'there IS a problem'
we can see there's a concern' means 'there MAY BE are problem', but does not mean 'there IS a problem'

If you can't understand the difference, there's no hope for you!

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I'll try to help you understand....

'admission of a problem' means 'there IS a problem'
we can see there's a concern' means 'there MAY BE are problem', but does not mean 'there IS a problem'

If you can't understand the difference, there's no hope for you!

Oh dear, again I refer you to SG, they never admit they're wrong till they can no longer attempt to hold back the sea. When they say something is a concern, they mean oh jesus effing christ what a mess this is

 

[rulefan]

I think you discount the arrogance of Scottish Golf. Their early season response to complaints was to fob everyone off with an arrogant "it's meant to be less sensitive than CSS, it's working fine".

Those comments are absolutely an admission it's not working

If it is "meant to be less sensitive" and people are complaining "it is less sensitive" doesn't that suggest it is working as intended?

 

[rulefan]

I have noticed that the countries which have previous experience of this process are not making any fuss.

 

[Foxholer]

If it is "meant to be less sensitive" and people are complaining "it is less sensitive" doesn't that suggest it is working as intended?

There CAN BE a difference between 'working as intended' and 'working as required'. And the difference and reasons for the difference DOES need to be investigated (reviewed). Whether any adjustment is subsequently needed depends on the result of the investigation - specifically, WHY it is 'meant to be less sensitive' than Congu UHS - which aims to 'normalise' every round.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

If it is "meant to be less sensitive" and people are complaining "it is less sensitive" doesn't that suggest it is working as intended?

Yes, and which the vast majority find is not equitable, and has been worked out badly. Just because it's doing what they designed it to do, doesn't mean they've got it right

I have noticed that the countries which have previous experience of this process are not making any fuss.

Indeed, USA & Oz where conditions don't vary very much, good grief Americans call a 5mph wind a windy day, they walk off if it rains.

Conditions vary greatly in Scotland, CSS used to reflect that well, and predictably, now we have a system that is effectively useless

 

[rulefan]

Indeed, USA & Oz where conditions don't vary very much, good grief Americans call a 5mph wind a windy day, they walk off if it rains.

The USGA did not previously have such a system but the EGA did. A big range of weather conditions between Finland and Spain.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

The USGA did not previously have such a system but the EGA did. A big range of weather conditions between Finland and Spain.

Pretty sure they don't run one PCC for every round on every course across the continent

 

[Foxholer]

Pretty sure they don't run one PCC for every round on every course across the continent

Indeed 'they' don't!

 

[jim8flog]

I have noticed that the countries which have previous experience of this process are not making any fuss.

I have not heard a single player make comment where I play and many of them still come up to me about their handicaps.

 

[rulefan]

Pretty sure they don't run one PCC for every round on every course across the continent

I'm certain they operate the same rules as Scotland.

 

[rosecott]

Yes, and which the vast majority find is not equitable, and has been worked out badly. Just because it's doing what they designed it to do, doesn't mean they've got it right

As another poster has suggested, it seems strange that you are talking in terms of vast majorities when some of us are not hearing a peep.

 

[wjemather]

Yes, and which the vast majority find is not equitable, and has been worked out badly. Just because it's doing what they designed it to do, doesn't mean they've got it right

Yet again, more outlandish claims without evidence. The vast majority simply do not know anything about PCC and don't care to - they will accept whatever it is and have no opinion on whether it's equitable or not (although I'm pretty sure you don't mean equitable here). And just because it doesn't do what you think it should, doesn't mean that it's wrong.

Indeed, USA & Oz where conditions don't vary very much, good grief Americans call a 5mph wind a windy day, they walk off if it rains.

Conditions vary greatly in Scotland, CSS used to reflect that well, and predictably, now we have a system that is effectively useless

And more demonstrated lack of knowledge, this time of meteorology in the US and Australia. Anyway, WHS is used the world over in places where conditions vary just as much as they do in your tiny part of Scotland. Scotland (or GB&I) is not a special case.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I'm certain they operate the same rules as Scotland.

Yes for each day on each course. What exactly was the point of saying Finland is different to Spain? The point is do conditions change dramatically intra-course?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

As another poster has suggested, it seems strange that you are talking in terms of vast majorities when some of us are not hearing a peep.

I literally do not believe that. Nobody is talking about PCC?

OK, put another way then, how many are saying it's a great change? Then you've got your zero responses.

 

[Imurg]

As another poster has suggested, it seems strange that you are talking in terms of vast majorities when some of us are not hearing a peep.

To be fair...the article linked in the 1st post says there are mumbling about PCC and thats why they're going to look at it....

 

[rosecott]

I literally do not believe that. Nobody is talking about PCC?

OK, put another way then, how many are saying it's a great change? Then you've got your zero responses.

You continue to demonstrate your inability to listen. Not one person has raised an issue about PCC in my patch. Oh, wait a minute, someone did ask me what the initials PCC stood for but he didn't want to discuss it any further.

And, no, no-one is saying it's a great change - they are saying nothing.

 

[rosecott]

To be fair...the article linked in the 1st post says there are mumbling about PCC and thats why they're going to look at it....

And we know who is doing the mumbling.

 

[Imurg]

And we know who is doing the mumbling.

Obviously more than 1 person unless that person has an awful lot of clout with the governing bodies....