PCC unrealistic or what?

[Voyager EMH]

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.

Other way round at my club. Seniors play in all board comps and their own extra seniors only comps. Seniors hand in a greater frequency of cards, play the most golf, have realistic handicaps that they generally play to, so less likely to see a PCC in seniors comps. Last two comps I played in (Saturday and Tuesday, open to all members) we had PCC of +1 and +2. Mind you, we have several over 60s with single figure handicaps, which might not be the case at your club.

 

[Voyager EMH]

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.

Incidentally, do you have any formal maths or stats qualifications? I'm not being cheeky, it was your question to RichA that sparked my interest.

 

[jim8flog]

Other way round at my club. Seniors play in all board comps and their own extra seniors only comps. Seniors hand in a greater frequency of cards, play the most golf, have realistic handicaps that they generally play to, so less likely to see a PCC in seniors comps. Last two comps I played in (Saturday and Tuesday, open to all members) we had PCC of +1 and +2. Mind you, we have several over 60s with single figure handicaps, which might not be the case at your club.

I meant not many in comparison to a club comp.

We have quite a few single figure seniors but the lowest (who actually play in the comps) are around 4 and 5 whereas in club comps there will be plus handicap players and quite a few very low single figures.

What is noticeable is that seniors comp will have many more 20+ handicappers as a percentage of the field. In the club Saturday comps generally the highest percentage of players are in Division 1 which is normally up to 10 Course Handicap.

 

[Foxholer]

...
My mate's handicap went up the other week after shooting a level par & 4 under gross in one week, because he knocked off a 5 under and a 2 under. In the old days I believe he would have buffered and gotten a cut.

So it's actually demonstrating that his recent/current form no longer justifies his 'old' HI! The system is working exactly as designed! He should accept and become accustomed to the way his HI is now calculated - if he hasn't already done so!

 

[Deleted member 1147]

So it's actually demonstrating that his recent/current form no longer justifies his 'old' HI! The system is working exactly as designed! He should accept and become accustomed to the way his HI is now calculated - if he hasn't already done so!

He played under his handicap and went up...that makes sense!

 

[jim8flog]

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.

Bit of time this morning
This is the record of one of our plus handicappers par71/cr 70.8 I have selected the period which includes our winter comps
It shows a fair sprinkling of some very poor scores some in groups but overall the best 8 is in the range -3 to 2

 

[Foxholer]

...
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.

I disagree!
PCC is an adjustment (to the CR in the net differential calculation) equivalent to CSS minus SSS, so it is definitely 'like CSS' albeit an adjustment cf a score value! The -1 thru +3.0 even corresponds to the range the CSS could move from SSS!

 

[Foxholer]

He played under his handicap and went up...that makes sense!

He's not playing as well as he previously was, so his HI should increase! Makes perfect sense!
Get used to the new reality HI is a 'moving average' compared to a 'historic value adjusted by set values each time a (competition) score is recorded!

 

[wjemather]

He played under his handicap and went up...that makes sense!

Yes, it does make sense. Unlike CONGU UHS, WHS is not perpetually tied to historic performance (good or bad) making it a more accurate reflection of current ability (assuming scores are submitted regularly).

For example, under UHS, if I set myself an initial handicap of 0.0 in September 2019, 40 rounds later in October 2020 it would be 0.2; with an initial handicap of 18.0, it would be 3.6 (my actual exacts were 2.4 reducing to 1.5 over that period). Now that really doesn't make sense. But under WHS, all scenarios would result in exactly the same handicap index (0.0).

 

[rulefan]

I disagree!
PCC is an adjustment (to the CR in the net differential calculation) equivalent to CSS minus SSS, so it is definitely 'like CSS' albeit an adjustment cf a score value! The -1 thru +3.0 even corresponds to the range the CSS could move from SSS!

And that's as far as it goes. The basic formula/algorithm is completely different.
Chalk & Cheese. Both whitish, can be cut in a block but significantly different when their use is considered.

 

[rulefan]

Incidentally, do you have any formal maths or stats qualifications? I'm not being cheeky, it was your question to RichA that sparked my interest.

I was accepted at Uni for maths but decided to go into employment as pay was potentially (and proven) to be better.

 

[Foxholer]

And that's as far as it goes. The basic formula/algorithm is completely different.
...

Except the purpose of both are equivalent - to establish standardisation for 'conditions on the day'!

...
Chalk & Cheese. Both whitish, can be cut in a block but significantly different when their use is considered.

Horrendous analogy! Use of both CSS and PCC IS equivalent!!

 

[IanM]

Horrendous analogy! Use of both CSS and PCC IS equivalent!!

Maybe this explains many of the posts re WHS in these venerable pages........

Average Golfer's mind - PCC is the WHS replacement for CSS - in that is messes with the numbers regarding the scores on the day due to whatever, who knows, but in essence that is what it is about!

Rules Buff's Mind - PCC and CSS are calculated differently and therefore any comparison of them in any way, shape or form is not acceptable.

See, you are both correct!

 

[Foxholer]

.....
Average Golfer's mind - PCC is the WHS replacement for CSS - in that is messes with the numbers regarding the scores on the day due to whatever, who knows, but in essence that is what it is about!
...

Agreed!

.....
Rules Buff's Mind - PCC and CSS are calculated differently and therefore any comparison of them in any way, shape or form is not acceptable.
...

That attitude is twaddle!

Here's a vid that demonstrates/confirms the 'equivalence'! Well, will be when I get the correct episode (5)!!

 

[IanM]

.....well, even if the Rules Folk "don't have that attitude"... I can see how the rest of us might get that impression.

 

[badgergm]

Agreed!

That attitude is twaddle!

Here's a vid that demonstrates/confirms the 'equivalence'! Well, will be when I get the correct episode (5)!!

I watched that before. pretty poor. No idea what theyre talking about saying about one really good score affecting CSS- wasn’t like that at all.
also talked about it being more conservative in the context of it going minus - didn’t indicate whether that was also the case for going plus.
The bottom line for me is that it is not reactive enough- if it was then low handicappers would have no concern about playing in bad conditions.

 

[SammmeBee]

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.

+1

 

[IanM]

Chalk and cheese eh???


This reminds me of what happens when IT Folk write their own communications material for business users.

 

[rulefan]

Almost Gemma's first words. "More or less". So, not the same but similar.

But console yourselves folks, CSS won't be revived.

 

[rosecott]

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.

Do you think that your subjective opinion on how hard the course is on the day should be the defining factor? Our Winter Alliance are now running their events as "qualifiers" and the PCC was +2 for their first event which was described as about right by all the participants I spoke to. The course was set up to be tough and the scores of the 150 players reflected that.