D
Deleted member 30522
Guest
There's no need for that pedantry, we all knew what he meant.
Playing Conditions Calculation
- Thread starter OldTomR
- Start date
D
Deleted member 30522
Guest
So you got nothing, but decided to post it anyway? You realise this is backing the argument that nobody knows what's going on?
jim8flog
Journeyman Pro
At the end of the day with the UHS and SSS/CSS you never new the CSS until the results were published by the club which could be days later then the comp. In the mean time if you played well you had to self adjust and how many new how to do that?
With the WHS you will see the your 'new 'handicap the next day ( the early hours of the morning if you are desperate to know and cannot sleep without knowing it) and any PCC calculation.
A big improvement in my opinion.
With the WHS you will see the your 'new 'handicap the next day ( the early hours of the morning if you are desperate to know and cannot sleep without knowing it) and any PCC calculation.
A big improvement in my opinion.
D
Deleted member 30522
Guest
Maybe your club, most clubs published when they closed the comp, now you're waiting until the next morning every day, plus you had a fair idea what sort of day it was and whether it was an easy or hard day, now it seems there is almost nothing that will change the PCC, your course plays the same day in day out.
Very few people play Opens, in my experience those that did knew perfectly well (yes I played a heap of opens)
Completely disagree on timeline, and PCC being better than CSS
jim8flog
Journeyman Pro
Point 1. A lot of clubs, like mine, use office staff to administer comps those staff leave work before the comp has finished and do not start work until the following morning.
Pont 2 . My experience is that the average club member was not aware of the need to self adjust if playing in another comp on the same day e.g comp in the morning match in the afternoon and a lot only found out after a loss of match due to failure to do so following a complaint from those that did after seeing a comp result the next day or so.
Point 3. I did not mean the PCC is better than CSS but simply the you know the former next day unlike the CSS on many an occasion.
As already said as part of this thread I have seen 3 PCC changes in the comps I have played in this summer.
Swango1980
Well-known member
I've played 38 times since the changeover to WHS. PCC has been zero for all 38 rounds. In the 38 rounds pre WHS, CSS was different to SCC 7 times. (Note, the % would be higher than 7 out of 38 rounds if only competition rounds were used pre WHS, as some of those rounds include general play were CSS would clearly not change).
It does still seem that it is very unlikely for PCC to change unless scores are drastically different to what is expected. During the WHS Workshops, England Golf were keen to enforce the point that golf and handicaps are acceptable all year round, and thus acceptable rounds should be played regardless of the time of year (which of course was also recommended pre-WHS). However, if PCC is very unlikely to change, even when weather conditions are terrible and player perception is that scores are worse than normal, then realistically how many golfers will not play during the winter if they wish to keep a lower handicap? I suspect these types of players are less likely to submit scores over the winter than they would have done pre WHS. Pre WHS, during terrible conditions, it was not uncommon to have a +1 to +3 CSS, and even Reductions Only at times. Worst Case, your handicap goes up 0.1 a round pre WHS.
I certainly won't state that PCC is wrong, as I've no idea how it is calculated. All I can say it does seem unusual that it barely ever changes from my own experience, and others.
It does still seem that it is very unlikely for PCC to change unless scores are drastically different to what is expected. During the WHS Workshops, England Golf were keen to enforce the point that golf and handicaps are acceptable all year round, and thus acceptable rounds should be played regardless of the time of year (which of course was also recommended pre-WHS). However, if PCC is very unlikely to change, even when weather conditions are terrible and player perception is that scores are worse than normal, then realistically how many golfers will not play during the winter if they wish to keep a lower handicap? I suspect these types of players are less likely to submit scores over the winter than they would have done pre WHS. Pre WHS, during terrible conditions, it was not uncommon to have a +1 to +3 CSS, and even Reductions Only at times. Worst Case, your handicap goes up 0.1 a round pre WHS.
I certainly won't state that PCC is wrong, as I've no idea how it is calculated. All I can say it does seem unusual that it barely ever changes from my own experience, and others.
Swango1980
Well-known member
PCC won't be shown on the competition results, because the competition may be closed before the end of the day, and thus PCC would not be known. I guess it would be nice to see it on the MyEG App list of scores, but I suppose they do not want to show too much info in one view. Thankfully they now show the Score Diff at least. Previously they did not, just the gross differential. That was a nightmare in trying to work out which scores would count to handicap, especially your latest round, as rounds would be played on different tees / courses, thus making the gross differentials incomparable
Wildboy370
Active member
Below are just a few replies I have had from England golf. It beggars the question why can’t they let clubs know, what’s the big secret. As stated before when WHS was set up we were told more formula and equations than an A level exam, but the secrecy behind this is simply bizarre. And as you say Swango. No one will want to play in the winter due to potential poor scoring and wild fluctuations in scores entered into your 20 scores, which will and do become one or more of your best 8. I have pointed out to EG how my HI has gone from 9.3 to 11.8 and back to 10.3 in three months due to poor scores which were weather affected and no PCC to offset this in some way.
We are not able to share any details of the PCC calculation currently (as instructed by the USGA) - As soon as we can, this detail will be shared with counties and clubs.
The PCC is functioning as my own record has seen several PCC adjustments - as previously mentioned, we have also shared concerns with the USGA regarding their calculator.
The PCC calculator is supplied under mandate by the USGA globally, we have no access to it, only a very complex document on how works.
We are not able to share any details of the PCC calculation currently (as instructed by the USGA) - As soon as we can, this detail will be shared with counties and clubs.
The PCC is functioning as my own record has seen several PCC adjustments - as previously mentioned, we have also shared concerns with the USGA regarding their calculator.
The PCC calculator is supplied under mandate by the USGA globally, we have no access to it, only a very complex document on how works.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Interestingly, the only time PCC is not zero on my record was pre Nov 2020. In other words, pre WHS. The reason it is non zero is that they changed it to be equivalent to the CSS at the time.
It is pretty apparent that had those rounds been played post WHS then PCC would most likely have been zero, rather than the change to CSS at the time. If PCC is better than CSS, then it may be they should never included the adjusted CSS in player records between Jan 2018 to Nov 2020. On the other hand, if they were right in matching PCC to CSS in those scores, then big questions need to be asked why PCC rarely changes at all in comparison to CSS.
wjemather
Well-known member
It was originally announced that CSS was not going to be ported at transition because PCC could not be retrospectively calculated. In response to complaints (mostly from low handicappers who claimed that their indexes should be significantly lower due to the regularity of CSS increases in the scratch events they played in - incidentally, this phenomenon only illustrates how bad CSS was) there was a u-turn and the old CSSs were blindly transposed onto PCC.
rulefan
Tour Winner
The big answer to that question is that is a completely different formula. The real question is why do scores need to be adjusted at all and if so, is PCC making an appropriate adjustment. I don't remember anyone ever querying the details of CSS. Did the tables really produce the right answer? They may only have been making a gesture. How accurate was CSS really? If conditions were poor it went up. That sounds right but should it have been 1 or 3? And why 3 as opposed to 1?
I wonder how many people ever asked the question why are columns 1-3 in Table A in multiples of 10%?
Swango1980
Well-known member
It is easy to criticise CSS now. However, if we went back 3 or 4 years ago, well before WHS, I am sure anybody working within the handicap authorities, and those supporters of the handicap system, would be singing its praises. Defending it to the hilt. If someone came on to a forum and said CSS was terrible, then I've no doubt that the likes of yourself would have defended it (and I would have been in that camp as well).
PCC comes along, and now it seems a piece of cake to say CSS was rubbish, but don't worry, clearly PCC is much better. But realistically, it is difficult for any of us to defend or criticise PCC either way, none of us know how it is calculated or have looked at the in depth stats. We can accept it on faith, because we can have faith the authorities have got it right. But, the authorities also gave us CSS. Once WHS has had a chance to settle, I've no doubt things will change within the system (just like they did under CONGU over the years) to improve it. Perhaps one of those things may be the PCC calculation, perhaps not. But, I'd be uncomfortable defending something as it stands, as I'd have to assume they've got it spot on from the outset.
Why do scores need to be adjusted? Well, if I shot 35 points on a terrible day, and finish in the top 2 or 3 of the field, I'd feel that is a better score than shooting 37 points on a lovely day and finishing 10th. On most occasions, CSS did change to reflect conditions. There was no need for a player to review the CSS tables, as the change in CSS very often simply felt right to most club golfers. If there were lots of great scores in on a lovely day, it would be virtually expected CSS would be SSS-1. On a terrible day, there would be no surprised to see CSS = SSS+3 and even slip into reductions only. I never remember anyone questioning CSS and saying it was rubbish, as it seemed to reflect the submitted scores well (no idea what it was like when first introduced, and how much it was refined over the years). It did exactly was it said on the tin, reflect the vastly different weather conditions we get in the UK.
I could go out and play tomorrow, weather could be horrible and shoot 32-35 points. That may slip into my top 8, or maybe not. However, that round would likely feel much better than many scores already in my top 8 (with higher points), as all those have been played in good weather and little wind. I'd expect to see PCC increase to reflect the bad conditions. However, I've little faith it would and have no way of knowing what it would take for it to be anything other than zero.
You ask "The real question is why do scores need to be adjusted at all?". Well, if they didn't why have PCC at all? If it was simply a gesture, I'd argue the authorities are more incompetent and spineless than I thought. I am sure that is not the case, and they acknowledge, as I demonstrate above, that PCC should be an important part of the process, just as CSS was.
IanM
Journeyman Pro
- Joined
- May 18, 2009
- Messages
- 13,256
- Location
- Monmouthshire, UK via Guildford!
I wonder if the issue is "Ordinary Golfers" are debating the impact, while the "WHS Police" are defending the calculations? They are quite different discussions.
Surely you would have heard "crikey, I can't believe that CSS did not go up/down" in every clubhouse in the land at some point.
wjemather
Well-known member
For what it's worth CSS was often questioned. In addition to the same gripes over it "not moving when it should", the biggest real issues were how often and how far it went up in low handicap (who played to buffer far less often than CSS accounted for) and senior (who's abilities are generally diminishing) events; and smaller fields exacerbated the issue. Both (but especially the seniors, in the absence of effective annual reviews) ultimately resulted in players with lower handicaps than their ability warranted which in turn affected future CSS calculations.
