World Handicap System

[wjemather]

Exactly...that's where trying to make everything count for handicap comes unravelled. I'd pick up in "bogey comps" as soon as I'd lost the hole. That could mean my score for handicap is lower than it would have been or if I key NR for the hole, it would be worse than in reality. Depending on how I chose to key it! The committee wouldn't know either, as we are not submitting cards, but keying into the App

There is no unravelling. Regardless of format (and until we start using Most Likely Score), for handicapping each hole simply needs to be played out until net double-bogey is reached (using Course Handicap). Pick-up sooner than that and NDB gets recorded for handicapping.

 

[IanM]

There is if you read the words on the page in the context of what they were replying to.

But, if you ignore that, of course you are correct and I am wrong. My apologies for posting,

 

[NearHull]

I apologise (to some extent) for re-raising PCC Calculations but I was trying to explain the PCC to a couple of members today. They are both fairly well up on WHS and are querying why the PCC doesn’t seem to move much. We just had held a Stableford, off Yellows, Cr 71.9 (Par72). Out of the field of 184, 51 scored 36pts or more , yet the PCC was 0. (There were no other registered score submitted on that day).

I found this on a USPGA website.

5.6/1 – Procedure for Performing Playing Conditions Calculation

The playing conditions calculation (PCC) will be an automatic calculation and can be summarized as follows:

1. Calculate the expected score for each eligible player.
2. Calculate the expected standard deviation of Score Differentials at the golf course, incorporating all applicable Slope Ratings.
3. Establish how many players scored better or worse than expected on the day.
4. The proportion of players submitting a score equal to, better than or worse than their expected scoring range determines whether a PCC adjustment is required.
5. If an adjustment is required, determine how much harder or easier the golf course played that day.
6. Based on these calculations, determine any final PCC adjustment required for play on that day.
7. A PCC adjustment is applied as a whole number.

Does the above equate to EG PCC?
Can anyone shed any light on point 3 , what should be expected?
51/184 is 28%, that seems to me to be a reasonable percentage achieving ‘better than expected‘ - or am I way out?

 

[Alan Clifford]

Can anyone shed any light on point 3 , what should be expected?
51/184 is 28%, that seems to me to be a reasonable percentage achieving ‘better than expected‘ - or am I way out?

72 % were worse than expected.

 

[wjemather]

I apologise (to some extent) for re-raising PCC Calculations but I was trying to explain the PCC to a couple of members today. They are both fairly well up on WHS and are querying why the PCC doesn’t seem to move much. We just had held a Stableford, off Yellows, Cr 71.9 (Par72). Out of the field of 184, 51 scored 36pts or more , yet the PCC was 0. (There were no other registered score submitted on that day).

I found this on a USPGA website.

5.6/1 – Procedure for Performing Playing Conditions Calculation

The playing conditions calculation (PCC) will be an automatic calculation and can be summarized as follows:

1. Calculate the expected score for each eligible player.
2. Calculate the expected standard deviation of Score Differentials at the golf course, incorporating all applicable Slope Ratings.
3. Establish how many players scored better or worse than expected on the day.
4. The proportion of players submitting a score equal to, better than or worse than their expected scoring range determines whether a PCC adjustment is required.
5. If an adjustment is required, determine how much harder or easier the golf course played that day.
6. Based on these calculations, determine any final PCC adjustment required for play on that day.
7. A PCC adjustment is applied as a whole number.

Does the above equate to EG PCC?
Can anyone shed any light on point 3 , what should be expected?
51/184 is 28%, that seems to me to be a reasonable percentage achieving ‘better than expected‘ - or am I way out?

By point 3 the expected score is effectively a range, which for many/most/all players might include 36 points. If you knew these ranges for every player, you would also need to look at the low scores, and how many of them were worse than expected.

 

[Alan Clifford]

Looking around the internet, I think the algorithm for calculating the standard deviations may be a secret that us mortal golfers are not allowed to see. I hope I am incorrect.

 

[NearHull]

Looking around the internet, I think the algorithm for calculating the standard deviations may be a secret that us mortal golfers are not allowed to see. I hope I am incorrect.

I think you are correct. It may be an IPR issue or it may be that the algorithm or the software doesn’t bear too much scrutiny.

 

[jim8flog]

. We just had held a Stableford, off Yellows, Cr 71.9 (Par72). Out of the field of 184, 51 scored 36pts or more , yet the PCC was 0. (There were no other registered score submitted on that day).

Is that 51 with 36+ points based upon 95%. For handicap and PCC it needs to be adjusted to 100%. Hard to do by the club as you will not know who lost how many shots with 95%.

 

[NearHull]

Is that 51 with 36+ points based upon 95%. For handicap and PCC it needs to be adjusted to 100%. Hard to do by the club as you will not know who lost how many shots with 95%.

Yes it’s at 95%. There were another 19 players at 35 pts so we could crudely estimate 14 of them would be at 36 at 100%. The maths is now getting convoluted but one could estimate 65/184 ie a third achieved better or equal(ish) to expected.

but …. What is expected? Didn’t we used to sit in the bar and mutter things like’ you should expect to play to your handicap two or three times a year’.

 

[HampshireHog]

I had to walk in after 9 holes on Saturday after an injury.

I entered my score for the 9 holes, marked the other 9 as not started, informed the office who acknowledged the injury and withdrew me from the comp.

Today I notice that the round has gone onto my record as if I had NR’d the back 9 I.e net double bogey on all the holes.

Found this on the EGU site

Q: What happens if I do not complete my round?
A: If you are playing a nine-hole round – then all 9 holes must be played for the score to be included in your record. If playing an 18-hole round you must complete at least 10 holes for the score to be returned. Any holes not played will be allocated a net par or net par plus one, before the score is processed.

My expectation was the round would not be put on my record. What should have happened?

 

[jim8flog]

Yes it’s at 95%. There were another 19 players at 35 pts so we could crudely estimate 14 of them would be at 36 at 100%. The maths is now getting convoluted but one could estimate 65/184 ie a third achieved better or equal(ish) to expected.

but …. What is expected? Didn’t we used to sit in the bar and mutter things like’ you should expect to play to your handicap two or three times a year’.

Personally I would go to 34 points and all those players added to the 51 as more likely figure, however to me the most important thing is Q1. As this is the basis for the calculation.

With my limited understanding of what they are saying is that all players with 36 points then the basis of point 3.


The other point to understand is Q1. Are they saying that the concept of the buffer zone still exists. Are they saying that only players with a handicap of 'x' or better are used in the PCC calculation, much like only Cats 1-4 affected CSS calculation.

 

[jim8flog]

I had to walk in after 9 holes on Saturday after an injury.

I entered my score for the 9 holes, marked the other 9 as not started, informed the office who acknowledged the injury and withdrew me from the comp.

Today I notice that the round has gone onto my record as if I had NR’d the back 9 I.e net double bogey on all the holes.

Found this on the EGU site

My expectation was the round would not be put on my record. What should have happened?

Looks like the office recorded the unplayed holes as NRs ( a hole started but not finished) when they should have recorded them as NSs ( a hole not started).

 

[HampshireHog]

Looks like the office recorded the unplayed holes as NRs ( a hole started but not finished) when they should have recorded them as NSs ( a hole not started).

Why would they have overridden the NS I had put in? Is that normal?
Should the round be counted?
In the EGU section I quoted it states holes not played will be allocated net par or net par +1. How does that work?

 

[rulefan]

I had to walk in after 9 holes on Saturday after an injury.

I entered my score for the 9 holes, marked the other 9 as not started, informed the office who acknowledged the injury and withdrew me from the comp.

Today I notice that the round has gone onto my record as if I had NR’d the back 9 I.e net double bogey on all the holes.

Found this on the EGU site

My expectation was the round would not be put on my record. What should have happened?

Your score should not have been entered. Did you enter the scores in an app or a PSI or did the office enter the scores for you? If the latter it would seem that they didn't read Rule 2.2

 

[Alan Clifford]

I should have thought this should have gone into your handicap record as a 9 hole round with net pars + 1 for the 9 not played.

 

[jim8flog]

Why would they have overridden the NS I had put in? Is that normal?
Should the round be counted?
In the EGU section I quoted it states holes not played will be allocated net par or net par +1. How does that work?

You must have played 10 holes for that to apply.

Get the office to delete the score. As per rulefan quote rule 2.2 Rules of Handicapping.

 

[jim8flog]

I should have thought this should have gone into your handicap record as a 9 hole round with net pars + 1 for the 9 not played.

Sorry wrong. Rule 2.2 applies he is playing a 18 hole round not a nine hole round.

 

[HampshireHog]

Your score should not have been entered. Did you enter the scores in an app or a PSI or did the office enter the scores for you? If the latter it would seem that they didn't read Rule 2.2

It was entered using the IG App Saturday, funny thing is it didn’t appear yesterday, and I was thinking that all worked smoothly?.

 

[rulefan]

It was entered using the IG App Saturday, funny thing is it didn’t appear yesterday, and I was thinking that all worked smoothly?.

It may be that the 'office' made an intervention to force the score through.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Does the above equate to EG PCC?
Can anyone shed any light on point 3 , what should be expected?
51/184 is 28%, that seems to me to be a reasonable percentage achieving ‘better than expected‘ - or am I way out?

We had a stableford last night, perfect conditions, flat calm, a third of the field hit what would have been the old buffer zones.

Result - 0 movement in PCC again, as we've had for every single medal this year. I've asked SG for an explanation of how it's worked out, no doubt they'll come back with the ambiguous waffle that you've copied from USGA above.