Is the handicap PCC working?

[davep043]

46 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I don't understand. If you know the calculation method, what is left to know? This is in the context of knowing the source code (which will absolutely define the calculation method, but might require a bit of very doable work) and protecting the USGA's IP. Is what the USGA trying to protect how well the algorithm matches the data that it came from? 

 

dave (had one PCC in the last 40'ish rounds of golf)

To my mind, and considering that the thread asks whether the PCC is working, you need to see the scores in order to decide if the PCC is actually working.  You'd also need to understand what the goal of the WHS was in developing the PCC, something none of us is ever likely to see.  Come to think of it, to decide whether the PCC is "working", you probably don't need to know the formula as such.  You'd need the data, and to understand the goal.  The formula is simply the tool used to get from the data to the goal.  If the goal is being achieved, then the PCC is working.

Edited June 1, 2022 by davep043

[DaveLeeNC]

9 minutes ago, davep043 said:

To my mind, and considering that the thread asks whether the PCC is working, you need to see the scores in order to decide if the PCC is actually working.  You'd also need to understand what the goal of the WHS was in developing the PCC, something none of us is ever likely to see.  Come to think of it, to decide whether the PCC is "working, you probably don't need to know the formula as such.  You'd need the data, and to understand the goal.  The formula is simply the tool used to get from the data to the goal.  If the goal is being achieved, then the PCC is working.

 

Got it - different goal than what I had in mind. Thanks. dave

[davep043]

4 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Got it - different goal than what I had in mind. Thanks. dave

Its interesting, I do wonder what the goal was.  I also wonder what the effects were of the daily adjustments under the previous handicap systems.  I looked back at this:

https://productionggs.s3.amazonaws.com/WHS-whitepaper.pdf

which summarized some of the main points of the previous 6 systems.  Three of those included some type of daily adjustment, Europe, CONGU, and Australia.  I really have no knowledge of the mechanisms of any of them, nor of the impacts.  I don't know if the final compromise, the PCC, was intended to have any significant impact. 

I DID attend a Handicap Seminar early in 2020, to learn about the new system.  The folks from the Virginia State Golf Association told us to expect relatively few PCC days (10%) or less) and so little to no impact on handicaps.  That view had to come from somewhere, presumably from information passed down from the USGA folks.  If it has no impact, some folks ask, then why the hell even include it?  Anyone who's been in a negotiation, especially with six different parties, should understand that you don't just tell half the people at the table to bugger off with their foolish ideas.  You work to find common ground and solutions that everyone can accept.

[jvincent]

My guess is that in the areas where handicaps were entirely based on competition scores the daily adjustment had a much more frequent impact which is why it's in the current system.

 

In the US/Canada where the overwhelming majority of scores are from casual play the PCC will have a much lower impact.

 

I still think the algorithm should be public.

[Bye]

On 6/1/2022 at 6:25 PM, davep043 said:

Its interesting, I do wonder what the goal was.  I also wonder what the effects were of the daily adjustments under the previous handicap systems.  I looked back at this:

https://productionggs.s3.amazonaws.com/WHS-whitepaper.pdf

which summarized some of the main points of the previous 6 systems.  Three of those included some type of daily adjustment, Europe, CONGU, and Australia.  I really have no knowledge of the mechanisms of any of them, nor of the impacts.  I don't know if the final compromise, the PCC, was intended to have any significant impact. 

I DID attend a Handicap Seminar early in 2020, to learn about the new system.  The folks from the Virginia State Golf Association told us to expect relatively few PCC days (10%) or less) and so little to no impact on handicaps.  That view had to come from somewhere, presumably from information passed down from the USGA folks.  If it has no impact, some folks ask, then why the hell even include it?  Anyone who's been in a negotiation, especially with six different parties, should understand that you don't just tell half the people at the table to bugger off with their foolish ideas.  You work to find common ground and solutions that everyone can accept.

I can only comment a little with regards to CONGU. Sorry I have not read all of the tread so it may have been covered already. 

 

Each course in the UK had a "standard scratch" based on the overall difficulty for a stereotypical scratch golfer very similar to what we have now. It would only ever change on a competition day. For most of it's existence it was weighted more on the results of lower category 1 handicaps of 5 and below (sorry, I don't know if this is standard from country to country). Towards the end it was changed to be more balanced. Generally on the more difficult days the standard scratch went up which meant you could get a bigger handicap reduction if you had played well or prevent a change if your score was just above the range for an increase. 

 

Looking at the rounds I have logged for my index, there are a few where the PCC has increased. I guess the more people logging scores on a given day will still increase the chance of a change. It seems to be reasonably consistent with what I experienced with the CONGU system. There were always days where a change was expected due to the conditions but it was never a given as generally someone always scores well.

 

Personally I think some daily adjustment is necessary.

[DaveLeeNC]

Just for grins I took a look at the revision scores of the 12 guys that I play with regularly (easy to do since they are on my Golfer Lookup list). That would be 240 total scores. Five of those scores had PCC changes (of either 1 or 2 strokes). 

 

FWIW. 

 

dave

[Shilgy]

Here in Arizona we were told by the state golf organization that we would likely have very few PCC days.  Which is understandable based on our weather conditions here.  And we only had a handful at my club in 2021.

 

But the question is “is it working”.  To the extent that the handicap is a measure of your potential…not any kind of average I would say it is.   For most players a difficult day PCC adjustment means nothing as they played poorly and will be filed in the non counting 12 of 20 scores.  Which is the norm with or without PCC.  
 However…the guys that played very well in spite of conditions will see a drop in their index because the round was exceptional compared to their peers.  Perhaps not as exceptional as the 7 or10 stroke better exceptional score adjustment but better than the pure course rating would make it seem. 

 

Lol….edited to add….I think my post above is understood by all.  It was difficult to convey what I perceived the issue to be.

Edited June 9, 2022 by Shilgy

[dwboston]

I'm convinced I'm some sort of barometer for whether there will be a PCC adjustment on a given day, but only in one direction.  If I have a good round, the algo decides the course was too easy and there's a -1 adjustment for the day.  I've yet to see a plus adjustment of any kind at my home course, which just got re-rated by the state golf association and is roughly half a shot more difficult from every set of tees vs. the previous ratings.  Blue tees are 74.4/139, Combo Blue/White are 73.1/135, and White tees are 72.2/134.

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Here in Arizona we were told by the state golf organization that we would likely have very few PCC days.  Which is understandable based on our weather conditions here.  And we only had a handful at my club in 2021.

 

But the question is “is it working”.  To the extent that the handicap is a measure of your potential…not any kind of average I would say it is.   For most players a difficult day PCC adjustment means nothing as they played poorly and will be filed in the non counting 12 of 20 scores.  Which is the norm with or without PCC.  
 However…the guys that played very well in spite of conditions will see a drop in their index because the round was exceptional compared to their peers.  Perhaps not as exceptional as the 7 or10 stroke better exceptional score adjustment but better than the pure course rating would make it seem. 

 

Lol….edited to add….I think my post above is understood by all.  It was difficult to convey what I perceived the issue to be.

 

Handicap is a measure of what ??? 🙃🙃🙃

 

In my last 20 I see a "-1" !!! That's the first "minus" I've seen since 1/1/20.

[Shilgy]

1 minute ago, nsxguy said:

 

Handicap is a measure of what ??? 🙃🙃🙃

 

In my last 20 I see a "-1" !!! That's the first "minus" I've seen since 1/1/20.

You don’t think that’s what handicap measures?

 

The standard measure of a golfer’s “potential ability” is the USGA Handicap Index®, which is a decimal number issued at each handicap revision. A Handicap Index is then converted to a Course Handicap™ to account for the course and tees being played that day

[North Butte]

I've always hated that particular bit of nonsensical, touchy-feely gobblegook from USGA about handicaps. It plays into the whole "I keep a handicap to measure my progress" meme. Handicaps are a number designed to produce fair games involving players of differing abilities. They don't have any mystical power to peer deep into a golfer's soul and say exactly how much (to the nearest 1/10 of a stroke) so-called "potential" he possesses. Good grief. 

[nsxguy]

10 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

You don’t think that’s what handicap measures?

 

The standard measure of a golfer’s “potential ability” is the USGA Handicap Index®, which is a decimal number issued at each handicap revision. A Handicap Index is then converted to a Course Handicap™ to account for the course and tees being played that day

 

That is soooooo 2019.

 

And from a FORE MAGAZINE article dated April 26, 2019

 

 

But from the World Handicap System, This (competing on a fair basis) is achieved by:

{snip}

 

Limiting the maximum hole score for handicap purposes to ensure a Handicap Index continues to reflect a player’s demonstrated ability.

 

Updating a Handicap Index on a daily basis, or soon thereafter.

Reviewing a player’s Handicap Index on a regular basis to ensure it continues to reflect the player’s demonstrated ability.

 

[nsxguy]

On 6/9/2022 at 8:50 PM, North Butte said:

I've always hated that particular bit of nonsensical, touchy-feely gobblegook from USGA about handicaps. It plays into the whole "I keep a handicap to measure my progress" meme. Handicaps are a number designed to produce fair games involving players of differing abilities. They don't have any mystical power to peer deep into a golfer's soul and say exactly how much (to the nearest 1/10 of a stroke) so-called "potential" he possesses. Good grief. 

 

That's why they replaced "potential" with "demonstrated ability".

 

 

 

Edited June 14, 2022 by nsxguy

[rogolf]

The PCC is a minor component of the whole WHS system, as it should be.  Many people seem to think there should be an adjustment any time it rains, is cold,  is windy or a combination of those.  It is not an adjustment that is based on weather conditions, it's based solely on scores reported to the handicap system for the specific course on that day.  The fewer scores reported to the handicap system, the lower probability of a PCC adjustment.

[antip]

On 6/2/2022 at 3:32 AM, jvincent said:

My guess is that in the areas where handicaps were entirely based on competition scores the daily adjustment had a much more frequent impact which is why it's in the current system.

In the US/Canada where the overwhelming majority of scores are from casual play the PCC will have a much lower impact.

 

I still think the algorithm should be public.

Here (Oz) handicaps are based on comp scores and a very high percentage of all golf played is in club comps. That is the golfing culture here. But on my data PCC adjustments are rare - around 2 per cent of rounds - in club comps at my home club (2 from the last 85 rounds, average course set up difficulty). I also travel and play a range of open competitions - senior events at multiple other courses with some 80+ per cent of the field being visiting/non-local members - and there the PCC percentage is around 12 per cent of rounds (5 from 40 rounds over the last 2 years, above average set up difficulty). 

[Newby]

1 hour ago, antip said:

Here (Oz) handicaps are based on comp scores and a very high percentage of all golf played is in club comps. 

Is that simply historical or do the authorities mandate it? 

[antip]

2 hours ago, Newby said:

Is that simply historical or do the authorities mandate it? 

No mandate, it is the way the game is played here. Most golf played is Club members playing competitions, non-club members are most commonly social/non-handicap players.

 

[Newby]

25 minutes ago, antip said:

No mandate, it is the way the game is played here. Most golf played is Club members playing competitions, non-club members are most commonly social/non-handicap players.

 

Do members ever play non-competition golf?  If so do they return scores? If not why not?

[antip]

44 minutes ago, Newby said:

Do members ever play non-competition golf?  If so do they return scores? If not why not?

Yes some do, but most do not or only rarely, the majority only play comps. Even when travelling around, it is normally cheaper to play in other clubs comps than pay a green fee and play social (non-competition). And those playing non-competition golf do not return scores because there is no regulatory guidance asking them to either from national or state association and no-one administering such process. This is a very distinctive feature of club golf in this country. I have never submitted a non-competition score since starting playing in 1967. This may seem strange and different for many around the world but because competition golf is the norm here I think the handicapping is probably more valid here than everywhere. 

[Newby]

Very interesting

[North Butte]

When I used to travel to UK every year for golf vacations, I made a few friends there. It was a frequent topic of conversation how different the club culture is there compared to my country club back home in USA. Their entire golfing life was built around the competition calendar [oops, I meant "diary"🤨] of their club, including inter-club events where they'd do home-and-away matches against other local clubs. There was the Saturday medal, usually a Stableford one afternoon during the week, various special events over two rounds at a weekend, etc. That was real golf to them. The little roll-up games during the week for the retired guys and so forth were just an afterthought, really. 

 

They always thought my having to post 3 or 4 scores a week back home, even when I played alone (this was in the solo round posting days) was just ludicrous. And I tended to agree with them, somewhat. At least about the solo rounds. But I don't know any USA golfers who would want the course dedicated every single Saturday to a large field stroke play tournament. At clubs I've belonged to the culture is mostly based around the kind of casual, friendly games that I described as an afterthought at your typical local English club.

[nsxguy]

On 6/9/2022 at 9:05 PM, rogolf said:

The PCC is a minor component of the whole WHS system, as it should be.  Many people seem to think there should be an adjustment any time it rains, is cold,  is windy or a combination of those.  It is not an adjustment that is based on weather conditions, it's based solely on scores reported to the handicap system for the specific course on that day.  The fewer scores reported to the handicap system, the lower probability of a PCC adjustment.

 

I'm confused. Is that really true ? I'd think it was the opposite. Isn't a smaller sample size more likely to produce unreliable results ?

 

e.g. I have no idea what the formula is but it has to be some sort of averaging, no ? Assuming that's true, say 2 or 3 players out of the 8 have unusually good days. Wouldn't that likely move the PCC to, say,  -1 ?

 

But if those same 2 or 3 players out of 100 have an unusually good day, it'd likely do nothing.

 

Not so ?

[davep043]

13 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

I'm confused. Is that really true ? I'd think it was the opposite. Isn't a smaller sample size more likely to produce unreliable results ?

 

e.g. I have no idea what the formula is but it has to be some sort of averaging, no ? Assuming that's true, say 2 or 3 players out of the 8 have unusually good days. Wouldn't that likely move the PCC to, say,  -1 ?

 

But if those same 2 or 3 players out of 100 have an unusually good day, it'd likely do nothing.

 

Not so ?

I'd look at it differently.  If 2 players of 8 have a bad day, it may not be indicative of anything.  If 25 players out of 100 have a bad day, its more likely to mean something actually is different from "normal".  Or put a different way, if the average net of 8 players is +5 (I'm guessing +3 is typical), its much less indicative than if the average of 100 players is +5.

[DaveLeeNC]

39 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

I'm confused. Is that really true ? I'd think it was the opposite. Isn't a smaller sample size more likely to produce unreliable results ?

 

e.g. I have no idea what the formula is but it has to be some sort of averaging, no ? Assuming that's true, say 2 or 3 players out of the 8 have unusually good days. Wouldn't that likely move the PCC to, say,  -1 ?

 

But if those same 2 or 3 players out of 100 have an unusually good day, it'd likely do nothing.

 

Not so ?

 

I believe (but cannot know as the USGA/R&A will not disclose) that the system takes into account the number of scores submitted and it has a higher standard before adjustment for the case of (for example) 8 scores vs. 28 scores. 

 

dave

[rogolf]

2 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

I'm confused. Is that really true ? I'd think it was the opposite. Isn't a smaller sample size more likely to produce unreliable results ?

 

e.g. I have no idea what the formula is but it has to be some sort of averaging, no ? Assuming that's true, say 2 or 3 players out of the 8 have unusually good days. Wouldn't that likely move the PCC to, say,  -1 ?

 

But if those same 2 or 3 players out of 100 have an unusually good day, it'd likely do nothing.

 

Not so ?

It's my assumption that the algorithm compares the average and standard deviation for the scores reported on that day for that course to an established/expected average and variance and at different confidence levels.  A small sample size (say 8 scores reported scores on a day) gives a very low confidence level for the results of the calculations for the day, which would result in a low confidence level when the day's results are compared to the expected results.  Larger sample size (say 100 scores reported for the day) would give much higher confidence level for the calculations for that day.

Again, I'd assume that PCC would not be implemented unless there was high confidence (90%?) that the day's results are different than the expected results.

It's based on a strict statistical analysis.

Edited June 14, 2022 by rogolf

[davep043]

55 minutes ago, rogolf said:

It's my assumption that the algorithm compares the average and standard deviation for the scores reported on that day for that course to an established/expected average and variance and at different confidence levels.  A small sample size (say 8 scores reported scores on a day) gives a very low confidence level for the results of the calculations for the day, which would result in a low confidence level when the day's results are compared to the expected results.  Larger sample size (say 100 scores reported for the day) would give much higher confidence level for the calculations for that day.

Again, I'd assume that PCC would not be implemented unless there was high confidence (90%?) that the difference between the daily results are different than the expected results.

It's based on a strict statistical analysis.

I tried to say kind of the same thing, but much less effectively.  My actual training in statistics is nonexistent.

[Golferpaul]

On 6/9/2022 at 4:43 PM, dwboston said:

I'm convinced I'm some sort of barometer for whether there will be a PCC adjustment on a given day, but only in one direction.  If I have a good round, the algo decides the course was too easy and there's a -1 adjustment for the day.  I've yet to see a plus adjustment of any kind at my home course, which just got re-rated by the state golf association and is roughly half a shot more difficult from every set of tees vs. the previous ratings.  Blue tees are 74.4/139, Combo Blue/White are 73.1/135, and White tees are 72.2/134.

I've seen many plus PCC adjustments.  I even had a +2 at Punta Espada.  I've never seen a +3.

[Celeras]

 

On 5/31/2022 at 3:57 PM, North Butte said:

Also, the GHIN system has no way of knowing which of the rounds that were posted that day have any relation to reality. The vast majority of scores posted to GHIN daily are not in competitions. So to an extent, the PCC will reflect any unusual proportion of vanity 'capping, ball rolling, putt picking up, free relief taking and/or solo round posting yahoos as it does an unusual degree of scoring difficulty.

 

It's easy to imagine a course where on a normal day there are 100 rounds posted, mostly from casual gimme-takers. But then it gets cold, rains off and on and blows a hoolie one day but there happens to be a competition that is played in spite of the conditions. So now not only are the comp participants shooting higher scores due to the weather, all the casual vanity 'cappers are going to stay home that day. 

 

Sounds like a recipe for an instant PCC +3 to me!

 

For some reason I am only now realizing the implications of the -1 to +3 range. The mental gymnastics I have to do to remember that a +3 PCC adjustment is when they LOWER your differential is too damn high. Who wrote this nonsense?

 

"a PCC adjustment between -1 and +3 will be applied to the Score Differentials™ of everyone who played that day."

 

The adjustment is not being applied as the verbiage indicates. How hard would it have been to just say the adjustment is applied to the COURSE RATING... so it logically makes sense without pulling up the damn formula to see where they plugged PCC in to the differential calculation? /pointless rant over

Edited June 22, 2022 by Celeras

[davep043]

2 hours ago, Celeras said:

 

 

For some reason I am only now realizing the implications of the -1 to +3 range. The mental gymnastics I have to do to remember that a +3 PCC adjustment is when they LOWER your differential is too damn high. Who wrote this nonsense?

 

"a PCC adjustment between -1 and +3 will be applied to the Score Differentials™ of everyone who played that day."

 

The adjustment is not being applied as the verbiage indicates. How hard would it have been to just say the adjustment is applied to the COURSE RATING... so it logically makes sense without pulling up the damn formula to see where they plugged PCC in to the differential calculation? /pointless rant over

Where did you read the stuff you quote?  It seems really clear if you simply read the Rules of Handicapping 5.1.  

[nsxguy]

33 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Where did you read the stuff you quote?  It seems really clear if you simply read the Rules of Handicapping 5.1.  

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/world-handicap-system-usga-golf-faqs/faqs---what-is-the-playing-conditions-calculation--pcc--.html

 

It's INcorrect. I just shot the USGA an email about it.

Edited June 22, 2022 by nsxguy