D
Deleted member 29109
Guest
Eah?
PCC unrealistic or what?
- Thread starter Maninblack4612
- Start date
rulefan
Tour Winner
There is but who mentioned 'every' game?
nickjdavis
Head Pro
But PCC is not based on whether players play better than Course Rating....its based on the number of players who play better/worse than the statistically expected scoring range for a player of their handicap.
harpo_72
Journeyman Pro
I wasn’t fully invested in the css , just saw it as a way of stopping people getting proper reductions because it hardly moved irrespective of 3/4 of the field being over and above the sss plus buffer.
However whs is a little more dynamic and the HI will settle for those who can put in cards or play competitions regularly. There are regulations on who is eligible for board competitions at my club. So this year rightly or wrongly I have gone out and played competitions and no social golf due to limited time. As a consequence my HI has gone up and down a bit and is probably higher than it should be, but reflects my incompetence..
Fingers crossed my game comes good at the weekend as it’s a board competition, a good score could see my HI drop by whole numbers .. which under the old system would be a small change.
So on the whole the clubs should be a little more circumspect about who wins what and identifies the “players”
However whs is a little more dynamic and the HI will settle for those who can put in cards or play competitions regularly. There are regulations on who is eligible for board competitions at my club. So this year rightly or wrongly I have gone out and played competitions and no social golf due to limited time. As a consequence my HI has gone up and down a bit and is probably higher than it should be, but reflects my incompetence..
Fingers crossed my game comes good at the weekend as it’s a board competition, a good score could see my HI drop by whole numbers .. which under the old system would be a small change.
So on the whole the clubs should be a little more circumspect about who wins what and identifies the “players”
D
Deleted member 1147
Guest
Isn’t that the point of this thread, people not playing and putting in cards at every opportunity
ger147
Tour Winner
No.
Maninblack4612
Tour Winner
Think you're missing the point. The PCC should reflect how much harder the course is on the day compared with average conditions. From my own, & other people's experience it clearly doesn't. Whatever it's based on, it doesn't work.
sweaty sock
Hacker
Does it really make a difference? Even if it goes up 2, thats only going to make a tiny adjustment to your average of 8? CSS hardly ever changed, and it needed to be practically unplayable for any shifts more than a shot.
If you play on a hard day, and it doesnt change, it means the expected percentage players have scored within their expected ranges, suck it up. Or there are so few cards entered a statistically significant calc cant be done... so no change.
As for the days where its sunny and calm in the morning, but blustery and chucking it down in the afternoon, well its big boy pants time, golfs an outdoor sport, conditions change.
County eventy and handicap restricted change more often because
1. The calc used to be weighted to be more reactive the greater percentage of cat 1s in the field, this may have changed for PCC, ive not seen the new calc.
2. Courses are usually set up to be more difficult for tgese events, longer rough, faster green speeds, occasiobal tucked pin.
If you play on a hard day, and it doesnt change, it means the expected percentage players have scored within their expected ranges, suck it up. Or there are so few cards entered a statistically significant calc cant be done... so no change.
As for the days where its sunny and calm in the morning, but blustery and chucking it down in the afternoon, well its big boy pants time, golfs an outdoor sport, conditions change.
County eventy and handicap restricted change more often because
1. The calc used to be weighted to be more reactive the greater percentage of cat 1s in the field, this may have changed for PCC, ive not seen the new calc.
2. Courses are usually set up to be more difficult for tgese events, longer rough, faster green speeds, occasiobal tucked pin.
wjemather
Well-known member
Most players have a very optimistic idea of their expected scoring range. Perhaps that's where the problem lies.
jim8flog
Journeyman Pro
It would be very hard to judge PCC changes at our club because you must have played in the comp to see it and we have 3 or more comps a week.
From the ones I play in it is noticeable that this year Saturday and Thursday comps with a good mix of players in have seen no change but Monday seniors comps (not many single figure players) have been +1 on the PCC on 2 occasions.
From the ones I play in it is noticeable that this year Saturday and Thursday comps with a good mix of players in have seen no change but Monday seniors comps (not many single figure players) have been +1 on the PCC on 2 occasions.
nickjdavis
Head Pro
The post I responded to indicated a gap in knowledge about how the system uses scores to calculate the PCC. If you have gaps in your knowledge about how a system operates then your expectations of the outcome or results are going to be skewed.
badgergm
Newbie
Actually, didn’t mean to imply that PCC was based on number of players beating course rating on the day. I wasnt stating that the PCC calculation was wrong. I was just using one measure to indicate that, however it is worked out, the PCC is too often zero.
I don’t understand why the algorithm isn’t published and subject to scrutiny.
RichA
Well-known member
Probably because they've got some techy who's never played golf to bastardise a piece of software that was designed for a completely different purpose 10 years ago. That's what my organisation does every time they feel the need to "modernise".
nickjdavis
Head Pro
That's fair enough....i wasn't meaning to be critical...just trying to bridge a potential gap in expectation.
Whilst a bit of me, that's interested in such stuff from a geeky maths point of view, would like to see the algorithm published....there's a bigger bit of me that doesn't, because i think it would cause even more confusion amongst the wider golfing community.
Oh that's a standard way of doing things in my org....lets apply solution X to problem Y, ignoring the fact that solution X was designed to solve problem Z...we will just modify it so it fits problem Y....oh...it doesnt work 100%...there's a surprise.....lets get the developers to resolve the issues with solution X at greater cost than building an original bespoke solution to problem Y.
rulefan
Tour Winner
The old CSS was certainly not used as any sort of model. It was devised and tested by many representative people from all the national authorities (all of whom (surprisingly) had a lot of experience in the real world of playing and managing golf) together with qualified statisticians. The fundamental philosophy was based on the tried and tested system used in Australia for many years.
I guess that the reason for not publishing the algorithm was twofold. One, to prevent commercial companies introducing a competing product and second, because lay golfers would simply not be able to understand the mathematics. And those few thousand that did would be proposing a few thousand inconsequential tweaks that would have to be thought about and probably rejected.
Incidentally, are you a professional statistician or mathematician.
RichA
Well-known member
Strictly an amateur....Incidentally, are you a professional statistician or mathematician.
Swango1980
Well-known member
My issue with this is that, although a player does not get a 0.1 increase for every round they shoot worse than handicap, submitting poor rounds still ultimately increases your handicap. Imagine in your last 20 rounds, 5 of those were played in very bad conditions and the scores were therefore not very good, then of course they will not feature in the best 8. However, perhaps in the 21st to 25th oldest rounds, there was at least one (if not more) good scores there. They are now lost and not included in your handicap calculation. However, had the player decided not to play on the days where the weather was bad, then his 21st to 25th oldest rounds would then actually be part of his last 20, thus he will have a lower handicap.
I'm still puzzled by the PCC calculations though. I was always able to understand why the CSS was what it was just by knowing what the scores were like, whereas there have been many competitions so far where it is difficult to see why CSS has not been higher than zero.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Because the CSS was dominated by the numbers of players in categories it was easier to get a feel for the scoring patterns but now it is related to the performance of players individually.
JonnyGutteridge
Newbie
Interested to understand this.
For example, my last medal score was 83. Par 70. My score differential was 10.6... I assume therefore the PCC would be 72.4 for that day? Unless Slope/CR comes into this.
(CR: 71.3, Slope 125)
However, the PCC on the site says 0 for that day.
2 people out of 124 had >36 pts, so 72.4 would probably be reasonable?
rulefan
Tour Winner
Your Differential is (113/Slope)*(Gross- CR - PCC)
(113/125) * (83 - 71.3 - 0) = 10.6
(113/125) * (83 - 71.3 - 1) = 9.6
So that shows that the PCC is 0.
PCC is not like CSS. It doesn't replace the CR like the CSS replaced the SSS. It is a value from -1.0 thru +3.0 which is added to the CR in the above formula.
