Winter Golf and Handicap

[wjemather]

CSS had a material affect on handicap adjustments.
Even if it came in more often than CSS ever did, PCC still wouldn't have any significant effect on handicaps as so very few affected rounds will ever be in the best 8 of 20.

Also, it's easy enough to estimate PCC, just like it was with CSS - it just requires a little understanding of what scores players should actually be expected to return, rather than basing judgments on nett CR or par.

 

[Imurg]

Even if it came in more often than CSS ever did, PCC still wouldn't have any significant effect on handicaps as so very few affected rounds will ever be in the best 8 of 20.

Which comes back around to a question I asked 3 years ago....
If it has a minimal effect on handicaps - why have it in the first place?

 

[Swango1980]

CSS had a material affect on handicap adjustments.
Even if it came in more often than CSS ever did, PCC still wouldn't have any significant effect on handicaps as so very few affected rounds will ever be in the best 8 of 20.

Also, it's easy enough to estimate PCC, just like it was with CSS - it just requires a little understanding of what scores players should actually be expected to return, rather than basing judgments on nett CR or par.

How often would a player play within their buffer zone so that CSS did have an impact on their handicap? I just googled an article, that suggested 26% played to buffer zone spiking to 31% in Stableford. So, would CSS have any more material impact on a players handicap than PCC (if they came in the same amount of times), given that a player if only likely to score well enough 26-31% of the time for it to matter.

 

[wjemather]

Which comes back around to a question I asked 3 years ago....
If it has a minimal effect on handicaps - why have it in the first place?

Maybe to preempt questions like "why is there no adjustment when conditions are really difficult and almost everyone has scored badly?".
Instead, we get "why doesn't the adjustment come in when I think it should (because it was windy/rainy); I'm sure the old system would?".
And several of the systems in place pre-WHS (GB&I, Australia, South Africa) had some sort of adjustment.

 

[IanM]

Which comes back around to a question I asked 3 years ago....
If it has a minimal effect on handicaps - why have it in the first place?

Ah. Why have a 3 step process when you can have a 2 step one?

 

[wjemather]

How often would a player play within their buffer zone so that CSS did have an impact on their handicap? I just googled an article, that suggested 26% played to buffer zone spiking to 31% in Stableford. So, would CSS have any more material impact on a players handicap than PCC (if they came in the same amount of times), given that a player if only likely to score well enough 26-31% of the time for it to matter.

CSS significantly affected reductions more than increases, especially for mid-high handicappers

 

[Imurg]

Maybe to preempt questions like "why is there no adjustment when conditions are really difficult and almost everyone has scored badly?".
Instead, we get "why doesn't the adjustment come in when I think it should (because it was windy/rainy); I'm sure the old system would?".
And several of the systems in place pre-WHS (GB&I, Australia, South Africa) had some sort of adjustment.

So it's a PR thing....a means of skirting questions.....
If you're going to get questions whether you have it or not it would seem logical to keep things as simple as possible and simply not bother with PCC...

 

[wjemather]

So it's a PR thing....a means of skirting questions.....
If you're going to get questions whether you have it or not it would seem logical to keep things as simple as possible and simply not bother with PCC...

I expect there was significant lobbying from CONGU, Golf Australia and Golf RSA to have it.
The USGA may have been concerned about such adjustments being too intrusive or coming into effect too frequently (like CSS did); which could explain why it started off very conservatively and was only adjusted later when lots of live data was available.

Equally, why do a small number of people worry and get very heated about PCC, when it doesn't significantly affect their handicaps?

 

[Imurg]

I expect there was significant lobbying from CONGU, Golf Australia and Golf RSA to have it.

Equally, why do a small number of people worry and get very heated about PCC, when it doesn't significantly affect their handicaps?

So why have it?
It certainly has a very insignificant effect on my index as it hasn't kicked in for 42 rounds....
If it truly has such an insignificant effect then it's worthless and just complicates things.
A 1 inch gimmee on the 18th isn't going to have a significant effect either......

 

[rulefan]

I expect there was significant lobbying from CONGU, Golf Australia and Golf RSA to have it.

CONGU called for the recent adjustment

 

[wjemather]

CONGU called for the recent adjustment

They lobbied for it, sure, but it was already something being monitored for adjustment anyway.

 

[wjemather]

So why have it?
It certainly has a very insignificant effect on my index as it hasn't kicked in for 42 rounds....
If it truly has such an insignificant effect then it's worthless and just complicates things.
A 1 inch gimmee on the 18th isn't going to have a significant effect either......

You're no different than >>99% of golfers.
I probably have a greater proportion of PCC adjusted scores on my record than most, but even so they have accounted for my index being at most 0.3 different from what it would have been without it - over 20% of my almost 100 rounds in the last 3 years have a non-zero PCC (mostly 1 or 2, and two -1); only a few have ever been counting.

Lots of things have an insignificant effect on their own; but they all add up.

 

[IanM]

Equally, why do a small number of people worry and get very heated about PCC, when it doesn't significantly affect their handicaps?

A "small number?" I wonder how you know? Or is that a way of saying "not you?"

The impact on a handicap depends on the several other variables!

 

[mikejohnchapman]

I think they do - the 12 handicapper's game has deteriorated and is no longer a 12. But a 17. The system is reflecting their decreased standard of golf. Not marooning them on 13 as UHS would have done.

Between the soft cap and hard cap he must have put a lot of cards in.

Or had a handicap review / low index reset.

 

[sunshine]

It doesn't feel like real golf when there is no bounce in the course.

You’re just describing the PGA TOUR

 

[sunshine]

How ignorant and tiresome

This is probably the most ignorant post in the history of this forum

 

[Deleted member 30522]

This is probably the most ignorant post in the history of this forum

The on I replied to? Yup

 

[rosecott]

This is probably the most ignorant post in the history of this forum

You can't have read all of his posts.

 

[sjw]

Then your club/committee need reminding that such scores must be submitted for handicapping.

This is honestly the dumbest rule I think I've ever heard

 

[wjemather]

This is honestly the dumbest rule I think I've ever heard

Really? What are the alternatives? Allowing clubs to choose which comps count and which do not (which apparently some clubs are doing), or worse, allowing players to pick and choose which scores they submit for handicapping?