PCC unrealistic or what?

[IanMcC]

Now don't get me wrong. I am generally a fan of WHS. But not publishing the algorithm for the PCC adjustment just makes it a mockery. 19 comps at windy/sunny/rainy/frosty/muddy Rhuddlan, and not one PCC adjustment.
I'm not complaining about the result. I just want to see the algorithm.
BTW, I'm not getting into a willie measuring contest, but I am quite highly qualified in mathematics myself. The standard answer of 'you would not understand it' just does not wash.

 

[rulefan]

I'm not complaining about the result. I just want to see the algorithm.

But why? What difference will it make?

Do you know the exact numbers and process behind your Course Rating?

 

[IanMcC]

But why? What difference will it make?

Do you know the exact numbers and process behind your Course Rating?

The only number that counts there is the Course Rating itself. I do have a rough idea of the process, as it has been well publicised in the run up to WHS.
I have no idea about the process of calculating a PCC. When members ask me about it I am embarrassed that I cannot tell them any more than 'its similar to the old CSS'.
At least under CONGU you could refer to the book to see how the CSS was calculated. I dont think its too much to ask for something similar under WHS.
To date, neither of our Men's' courses have had a PCC other than zero.

 

[ger147]

But why? What difference will it make?

Do you know the exact numbers and process behind your Course Rating?

Why not?

 

[wjemather]

The only number that counts there is the Course Rating itself. I do have a rough idea of the process, as it has been well publicised in the run up to WHS.

I have no idea about the process of calculating a PCC. When members ask me about it I am embarrassed that I cannot tell them any more than 'its similar to the old CSS'.

At least under CONGU you could refer to the book to see how the CSS was calculated. I dont think its too much to ask for something similar under WHS.

To date, neither of our Men's' courses have had a PCC other than zero.

Rule 5.6 Interpretations contains more than enough to get a grasp of the methodology if you really wanted to confuse people. However, I'd have thought handicap secs should be simplifying it further to members, not trying to make their heads explode with degree level statistics.

 

[jim8flog]

At least under CONGU you could refer to the book to see how the CSS was calculated. I

You could see how it was calculated but realisticly how many players would have bothered to do the calculations manually. I only ever did once for myself and that was before the computers did it for you.

It was only in the fairly recent past (6 years or so) that you could do it for yourself without buying the manual or borrowing the office copy.

 

[badgergm]

An example of the unresponsiveness of PCC, from last 2 weeks below. PCC on both days was 0. Day 1 was much harder, at least 1 shot and probably 2.

Day 1
Windy day, swirling wind av 15 for most of day, in afternoon/evening gusts to > 25. Moderately firm/bouncy. Difficult scoring conditions.

- 1 out of 75 < Course Rating
- 6 out of 75 < CR+2
- 1 out of 75 < 70
- 13/75 scoring 73 or better

Day 2

Breezy, 8-10 maybe not as gusty, up to 15.
Note that course rating and slope changed (both increased) between Day 1 and Day 2 due to replacement of provisional assessment.

23 out of 91 < CR
41 out of 91 < CR+2
18 out of 91 < 70
41 out of 91 < 73

 

[patricks148]

No idea how pcc works but not one of my scores had any adjustment so far this year. One comp was very windy and there were not many good scores apart from a guy thats handicap had gone up a fair few shots and was off 20 something had a net 68. .a friend who's on our comm told me the SG weather is factored nationally, which seems strange. We usually have at least two comps that are RO, be interesting if we do get any scores with PCc adjustments

 

[TreeSeeker]

I had an event where net scores were in the range of -3 to +3 with maybe two or three who were much over yet pcc was 0, seeming quite odd and normally i would like to check the calculation.

Not really great that there is no visibility of the calc, and i can't imagine how the pcc will ever move when literally almost perfect conditions resulted in no change.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

But why? What difference will it make?

Do you know the exact numbers and process behind your Course Rating?

So far this season we haven't had one single PCC adjustment, in any weather. That never happened with CSS, so I also would like to see how it's calculated to try to understand it. I'm not by nature someone who accepts "it just is", I like yo know *why* it is.

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Of the 10 rounds I have submitted a card in either a comp or general play 2 have had a PCC adjustment of 1.

Conditions have been less breezy than you expect recently and there has been some crazy low scores with yet another 25 handicapper cleaning up at the weekend.

Lets see what the weekend brings, Blue tee comp and the CSS would always go up in the past for a club comp off those tees.

 

[wjemather]

An example of the unresponsiveness of PCC, from last 2 weeks below. PCC on both days was 0. Day 1 was much harder, at least 1 shot and probably 2.

Day 1
Windy day, swirling wind av 15 for most of day, in afternoon/evening gusts to > 25. Moderately firm/bouncy. Difficult scoring conditions.

- 1 out of 75 < Course Rating
- 6 out of 75 < CR+2
- 1 out of 75 < 70
- 13/75 scoring 73 or better

Day 2

Breezy, 8-10 maybe not as gusty, up to 15.
Note that course rating and slope changed (both increased) between Day 1 and Day 2 due to replacement of provisional assessment.

23 out of 91 < CR
41 out of 91 < CR+2
18 out of 91 < 70
41 out of 91 < 73

These bare numbers are meaningless. Do you know what the expected score range was for each player completing a (PCC considered) round for handicapping on each day, and how many of them were better than/worse than/within that range?

 

[wjemather]

Lets see what the weekend brings, Blue tee comp and the CSS would always go up in the past for a club comp off those tees.

That is just evidence that the old system did not work very well - e.g. (among other things) integer SSS ratings, no consideration for the variance in difficulty for different standards of golfer, and an overly optimistic view on how consistent the scoring of better players is.

 

[badgergm]

These bare numbers are meaningless. Do you know what the expected score range was for each player completing a (PCC considered) round for handicapping on each day, and how many of them were better than/worse than/within that range?

no I don’t. But id Like to know what these expected score ranges are, and how it affects PCC. Can you tell me that? Because if you can’t your words are meaningless.

Ill tell you what I do know - it was a damn sight harder on day 1 than damn 2 .

 

[Deleted member 3432]

That is just evidence that the old system did not work very well - e.g. (among other things) integer SSS ratings, no consideration for the variance in difficulty for different standards of golfer, and an overly optimistic view on how consistent the scoring of better players is.

Was the variance in difficulty not built into the 'wider' buffer zone for higher handicap categories?

 

[wjemather]

no I don’t. But id Like to know what these expected score ranges are, and how it affects PCC. Can you tell me that? Because if you can’t your words are meaningless.

Ill tell you what I do know - it was a damn sight harder on day 1 than damn 2 .

To repeat what has already been covered... Every handicap index has a corresponding range of expected scores for every set of tees. PCC is based on the proportion of players returning scores outside their expected range. Your perception of difficulty is irrelevant to every other golfer, but especially those with very different handicaps to you.

Was the variance in difficulty not built into the 'wider' buffer zone for higher handicap categories?

No, not at all. Variance in course difficulty is only accounted for by the Slope Rating, which played no part in CONGU UHS. Buffer zones simply acknowledged higher handicaps are less likely to score close to their handicap (but did not indicate how close they are actually expected to score). They also provided a target range of scores with which to calculate CSS - these ranges were much narrower than PCC ones, and players were expected to return scores outside them a significant proportion of the time.

 

[badgergm]

To repeat what has already been covered... Every handicap index has a corresponding range of expected scores for every set of tees. PCC is based on the proportion of players returning scores outside their expected range. Your perception of difficulty is irrelevant to every other golfer, but especially those with very different handicaps to you.
.

So what? Does this basic fact mean that the calculation is somehow unchallengeable?
If I was to post some stats that said that no one out of 100 golfers shot less than nett 80, would that also be ‘meaningless’ because I can’t quote you the ‘expected scores’?
Seems to me that the range is too large, or some other flaw in the algorithm. But hard to judge without the detail of what it is.