Is the handicap PCC working?

[nsxguy]

The weather thingie sounds interesting but you'd have to come up with formulas to accommodate all the different combinations of weather AND how the course was set up that day. And I'm not sure how anyone will agree on that as it requires at least some subjectivity.

And players entering what they think the PCC should be that day ? A big "No thanks" on that one. I don't want a 20 handicapper with a year or 2's experience shooting 115 under perfect conditions and entering a "+3" driving my handicap downward because he/she had a terrible round in easy/average condition.

So a statistical formula where ZERO subjectivity is involved would seem to be the best "solution",,,,,,,,,,,,, if indeed a solution was necessary in the first place. But as Dave suggested, for the WHS, getting closer to a standardized system was the goal.

I mean suppose you were 1 of 20 guys. You shoot 73, a 2.5 differential, 2 shots better than your index. I expect you'd say you had a pretty-to-very good round, yes ?

Suppose, of the other 19 guys, a few of them came in with a diff 1 or 2 shots above their index and the rest of them shot between 1-4 shots UNDER their HI, just as you did. NOW how does your round look ?

And conversely, suppose the other 19 come in dragging their butts and shooting between 5 and 15 shots OVER their HI. NOW your round looks quite a bit better, yes ?

And that's exactly what the PCC is for. And it's totally objective.

[phil75070]

For the sake of argument, let's say my round of 73 was achieved playing by the Rules but since all of us that day just playing "casual" golf, not in any kind of tournament or competition, how do I know those guys/gals shooting UNDER their index weren't rolling the ball, were extremely generous with gimmies, and weren't otherwise playing by the Rules? By comparison, my score might look really good in that case.

Conversely, for the other group where so many are scoring 5 to 15 shots OVER their index, how do I know how many of them are sandbaggers padding their score because they have an upcoming event they are playing in and want to elevate their handicap? Or it is some type of outing where the field is made up primarily of those who aren't all that good to begin with, maybe don't play all that frequently and thus have little chance of shooting anywhere near their index much less below it.

I still say, having my handicap affected, good or bad, by what others do, as objective as this may seem to be, I feel is wrong. Putting aside how weather and course conditions can change from morning to afternoon, if apples (rounds played IAW the Rules) are being compared to and affected by oranges (rounds NOT played by the Rules) then I feel the system is flawed.

 

[nsxguy]

I get your stance that it's unnecessary. I believe I suggested the possibility "if indeed a solution was necessary in the first place".

But it's in place now and given the apparent infrequency of being applied I guess, net-net, it might be about the same(?) effect as the previous 6% reduction in the differential calculation. Yet nobody(?) ever made a big "to do" about that.

But given your 2 scenarios, if you believe either the sandbagging issue is likely you probably don't play much in handicapped events/situations. I know I wouldn't. The first one, vanity handicapping, is probably more likely but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[phil75070]

When I belonged to a country club I always played in the monthly events. Every day they matched up the tee sheet with the scorecards turned in and we had a staff and handicap committee that took things seriously when it came to handicaps. Even then, back in the 1990's there was a national event called the Oldsmobile Scramble and there were two golfers in the weeks leading up to the local qualifying whose scores shot up dramatically as they tried to get their team into the nationals. When I belonged to a public course, the seniors played every Wednesday. I had the lowest handicap in the group by a few strokes. Not very much money was at stake and only the top three places were paid anything. Not once in two years did I finish in the money as it would have taken career best rounds, by several strokes, to even finish 3rd. The combination of sandbagging and too many high handicaps getting lucky enough to have some of their better rounds did me in. Since then, you are right, I don't play in handicap events.

Since I rarely, if ever, play in events of any kind, and much prefer friendly matches be played even, what the PCC does to my handicap is really a moot point.

Nice debate!

[phil75070]

@davep043 @nsxguy A buddy pointed something out to me this morning. Is the PCC really a "playing condition" calculation or, since it is based on scores, is it an assumption that higher or lower scores that day were affected by the playing conditions? Even if weather somehow is taken into consideration, how can the system know if the course that day was set up more difficult or easier than normal other than making assumptions based on posted scores?

[nsxguy]

What's in a name ? LOL

Can't call it a "Weather Conditions" calculation because as you point out how the course is set up contributes to scoring (or a lack thereof)

Can't call it a "Course Conditions" calculation because as you point out how the weather contributes to scoring (or a lack thereof).

I think "Playing Conditions" sounds just about right, no ? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[davep043]

I agree with @nsxguy , what would a better name be? Course set up is part of playing conditions, so is weather. And playing conditions have the potential to influence scores on a particular day. The PCC calculation doesn't care WHY scores are higher or lower on a given day, only that they ARE higher or lower. And yes, the system does make an assumption that the deviation from "standard" scoring is due to something other than normal variability of scores. They've tried to set up the calculation to filter out "normal variability", but that's not really possible in every occasion. As has been asked before, once you agree that some type of adjustment is appropriate (obviously the 6 handicapping bodies have agreed), how else should it be done?

[duffer987]

Folks absolutely get hung up on 'playing conditions', which they should have thought of, it doesn't matter of course as it does what it does, but had they changed 'playing' for 'scoring' there'd be fewer furrowed brows

USC = Unusual/Unexpected Scores CorrectionSEC = Score Excuse CorrectionSCA = Scoring Conditions AdjustmentSSD = Sucky/Super Scoring Day

[Max21]

didnt fully understand how it worked then. Thanks

[Max21]

Okay thank you!

[rogolf]

Have to remember that it's the number of rounds posted for handicap purposes on that day, not the number of rounds played on that day.

[Max21]

That makes much more sense. Thank you

[rjp1969]

That is how I see it. I'll probably end up paying for the Grint as the have moved other stuff inside the pay-gate. I'll keep my money for this year as a silent protest and continue to shake my fist at clouds.

[karstens_ghost]

It's "strength" should be doubled. It's far too unlikely as is.

[cadoipi]

Had my first PCC kick in recently: -1

It was on league day and the game of the week was you get to take handicap/4 mulligans (for 9 holes). Since you can do league play at any time during the day, many people end up playing a full 18 holes. I think what happened was that a bunch of people submitted the score they shot using their mulligans on the front 9.

In the score I submitted, I added back the 3 strokes my two mulligans saved me. (It was clearly 3 since one was a missed short putt and the other was an OB tee shot.)

[QEight]

So people submit rounds with Mulligans and not posting max scores for those holes?

[Newby]

I wonder why the bother with any handicap system at all.

[Deceptively Short]

The goal of a universal handicap system is a noble one and improving on existing systems by using the better elements of other will no doubt be beneficial to all.

However the culture difference between various regions is so huge as to render the ideal of a truly effective, competitive basis for scoring worldwide seemIngly unachievable for a very, very long time.

In a discussion yesterday with a group of seasoned UK golfers I had to explain what a mulligan was as most had no idea of the existence of the term let alone the practice. Similarly I said that there were debates on here about the playing of music on the course, this was greeted by looks of utter bafflement as they had never heard of such a thing existing. I dread to think what they would have thought of a mulligan in a round that qualified for handicap.

 

 

 

 

 

[nsxguy]

These people have vanity 'caps.

They're not to be worried about. LOL

It's the sandbaggers we worry about.

[davep043]

In this particular case, I blame the organizers of the league even more than I blame the players. They selected a format that included mulligans, which should immediately disqualify the score form being posted. The organizers should have made it plain, "Do not post this score." And yes, the players should know better too, but so many are just sheep, following the herd.

[cadoipi]

I won't complain if a bunch of people in the league (which is flighted by handicap) want to post vanity scores, more prizes for me!

[Deceptively Short]

Interestingly the concept and possibility of having a ‘vanity handicap’ was also one of the things we discussed and the group were incredulous that such a thing could or actually did exist in a syste.

[davep043]

Oddly enough, some of us who are involved in Handicap Committees want all of the handicaps the be accurate. Not too high, not too low, just right. We wish that approach was shared by the rank and file golfers.

[nsxguy]

Really ? Incredulous ?

Vanity handicaps are probably still plentiful. Now I know golfers can have off days. But I've played a lot with strangers here and there who've said they're such and such a handicap. More often than not I'll just smile inwardly and say (to myself of course) "Okaaaaaaaay".

But the only time I'd object to a vanity cap is if they were going to be my PARTNER. LOL

 

[cadoipi]

My understanding (from these forums....) is that play in the UK is heavily based around match play. In a world where almost every round one plays is handicapped match play, mantaining a vanity handicap would seem absurd.

[Deceptively Short]

Under the CONGU system vanity handicaps really don’t exist. If you are a 4 handicap you will have to have shot 4 and less over the competition standard scratch (course rating) on many occasions under competition conditions on a course set up correctly and attested by your playing partners.

Achieveing milestones such as becoming an 18 handicapper or getting to single figures or becoming Cat 1 (5 or lower) or getting to scratch are celebrated and really something golfers are really proud of over here. It is nigh on impossible to claim a lower handicap than you can shoot, this gives the number some real value.

Hence the thought that many can achieve something that is considered to be of merit here through putting false numbers into a phone App is something to be incredulous of.

[ALTSean]

Agree, but we play a lot less match play in the U.S. There are plenty of guys who want to claim they are a "5" or a "9," pick your digit, for whatever vanity reason. These are also the same guys that pick up 3 footers or take a first tee mulligan so maybe they are a "5" or a "9" under those "rules," but they shoot higher in a real competition.

[Deceptively Short]

I’m not sure of the proportion of matchplay vs strokeplay golf in the various regions. However we do make a big difference between ‘social golf’ which does not qualify for handicap which might be matchplay or strokeplay individual or team between groups (this might include in some groups gimmees for example) and ‘proper’ or ‘serious golf’ I.e.individual strokeplay golf in competition, attested by playing partners played strictly by the rules.

There are many players who will claim,correctly, that they are much better in social golf but go to pieces in competitions ‘when it counts’. To achieve and maintain your handicap you must have proved that you are able play to it repetitively under competition conditions.

[Newby]

Not really. It seems we may play proportionally more match play but the dominant form by far is medal or stableford. Matchplay scores do not qualify for handicapping purposes, only competition singles strokeplay. Vanity capping is almost impossible under the CONGU regime.

Probably the most common form of social play is 4BBB if only 4 players are involved or various versions of 2 from 3 or 3 from 4 etc if there are larger groups. The latter being very popular. 'Skins' and all other betting variants are very rare as are high stakes if any prize money is involved in internal social groups.

Edit: Many Open 4BBB or Am/Am competitions are played around the country and this is where sandbaggers ply their trade. They will build their handicaps in qualifying strokeplay comps and scoop the prizes at distant clubs where they are not known.

 

[nsxguy]

Sorry, I'm generally stuck in "USA mode". LOL Lots more social and less organized "groups", as opposed to more formal "clubs".

Didn't realize you were in CONGU land. Yes, I knew that you guys don't include social play, only comps. Didn't realize that match play wasn't included in handicaps though.