PCC change

[rogolf]

22 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

And what I am somehow unable to say in a way that makes sense to you is this:  I am fully aware that the algorithm doesn’t care what the weather is. But the USGA claims weather is a key factor in the PCC. And I and others are arguing it really isn’t when you look at how it actually has adjusted our scores.

 

Perhaps their assumption that weather was a key factor for increased scores was inaccurate? They knew all along that there was no weather data included in the PCC algorithm.

Edited November 15, 2023 by rogolf

[North Butte]

18 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Perhaps their assumption that weather was a key factor for increased scores was inaccurate? They knew all along that there was no weather data included in the PCC algorithm.

The USGA, for reasons of politics and face-saving for their international partners in WHS, deliberately muddied the waters when all this was introduced. They wanted people in Rest of the World to believe PCC was more like CSS than it was so they kind of sort of indicated that weather factored into it without actually saying so. Politics. 

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Schulzmc said:

And what I am somehow unable to say in a way that makes sense to you is this:  I am fully aware that the algorithm doesn’t care what the weather is. But the USGA claims weather is a key factor in the PCC. And I and others are arguing it really isn’t when you look at how it actually has adjusted our scores.

 

Buddy, I'm not just talking about you when I talk about weather, the PCC algorithm, etc. There are many of you misguided souls out there. 🤣

Edited November 16, 2023 by iacas

[ThinkingPlus]

39 minutes ago, North Butte said:

The USGA, for reasons of politics and face-saving for their international partners in WHS, deliberately muddied the waters when all this was introduced. They wanted people in Rest of the World to believe PCC was more like CSS than it was so they kind of sort of indicated that weather factored into it without actually saying so. Politics. 

I suspect it was more of a "path of least resistance" moment for the USGA. They adopted (probably with some tweaks) the approach Australia Golf had adopted and had data supporting. Easy for USGA. The R&A was replacing an existing approach that membership already trusted with something new. Bigger sales job and much further out on a maybe skinny limb.

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, North Butte said:

The USGA, for reasons of politics and face-saving for their international partners in WHS, deliberately muddied the waters when all this was introduced. They wanted people in Rest of the World to believe PCC was more like CSS than it was so they kind of sort of indicated that weather factored into it without actually saying so. Politics. 

 

Where do you come up with sort of drivel? Is it too mucn AM radio? 🙄

[nsxguy]

18 hours ago, North Butte said:

The USGA, for reasons of politics and face-saving for their international partners in WHS, deliberately muddied the waters when all this was introduced. They wanted people in Rest of the World to believe PCC was more like CSS than it was so they kind of sort of indicated that weather factored into it without actually saying so. Politics. 

 

Or possibly due TO "saying so".

 

Q. What is the playing conditions calculation (PCC) and how does it work?

 

A. At the end of each day, the playing conditions calculation takes place automatically to determine if scores made at the course were significantly higher or lower than the expected scores of the players who made them, primarily due to weather and/or course set up.

 

 

I wonder what the results would be if someone put up a poll asking players something like, "OTHER THAN "just had a bad day", what might be YOUR primary reason(s) for shooting a higher-than-average score ?

 

Weather ? Course set up ? Tournament Round ? Other ?

 

 

[PNWGuy]

I just uncovered the formula to calculate PCC.  It's pretty straightforward.

 

 

[Newby]

20 hours ago, PNWGuy said:

I just uncovered the formula to calculate PCC.  It's pretty straightforward.

 

 

There's an error in line 3.

0.03541 should be rounded up not truncated.

Edited December 4, 2023 by Newby

[cardoustie]

Just had my first PCC adjustment of +3 … Jan 9 .. was steady 4h oh winds here that day 

[ChaosTheory]

18 hours ago, cardoustie said:

Just had my first PCC adjustment of +3 … Jan 9 .. was steady 4h oh winds here that day 

Where?  Our course in DFW had +3 on Jan 10.

[cardoustie]

11 hours ago, Snowman9000 said:

Where?  Our course in DFW had +3 on Jan 10.

Venice FL

[david.c.w]

I just experienced a +2 on Saturday in South Carolina.  I found it interesting as somehow I had a very good round (75 with 4 birdies and hole out eagle.  Won't discuss the doubles).  Cold but little wind, and only a few tough hole locations.  Not a ton of groups either.  

 

I don't think anyone in our 2 foursomes had a horrible round.  

[Augster]

I read late last season the ruling bodies wanted to enhance PCC to become active in 10% of rounds. I know last year wasn’t even close to that for me, or at my course. 

My course only had 13 adjustments all year. It’s an April-October season in MN, and 4 of those adjustments were in April. 
 

13 total adjusted days doesn’t feel like 10%. Maybe it is. 7 months x 30 days is 210 days. 13/210= 6.2%. But I’m sure many of those 200+ days either didn’t have anyone play, or didn’t have 8 posted scores. I doubt it’d be down to 130 days, which would be 10% of days. 
 

Maybe the Ruling bodies have acted to make the PCC more active. 

[rogolf]

57 minutes ago, Augster said:

I read late last season the ruling bodies wanted to enhance PCC to become active in 10% of rounds. I know last year wasn’t even close to that for me, or at my course. 

My course only had 13 adjustments all year. It’s an April-October season in MN, and 4 of those adjustments were in April. 
 

13 total adjusted days doesn’t feel like 10%. Maybe it is. 7 months x 30 days is 210 days. 13/210= 6.2%. But I’m sure many of those 200+ days either didn’t have anyone play, or didn’t have 8 posted scores. I doubt it’d be down to 130 days, which would be 10% of days. 
 

Maybe the Ruling bodies have acted to make the PCC more active. 

It likely doesn’t mean 10% at each golf course, but 10% over all courses around the world. 

[bluedot]

13 hours ago, Augster said:

I read late last season the ruling bodies wanted to enhance PCC to become active in 10% of rounds. I know last year wasn’t even close to that for me, or at my course. 

My course only had 13 adjustments all year. It’s an April-October season in MN, and 4 of those adjustments were in April. 
 

13 total adjusted days doesn’t feel like 10%. Maybe it is. 7 months x 30 days is 210 days. 13/210= 6.2%. But I’m sure many of those 200+ days either didn’t have anyone play, or didn’t have 8 posted scores. I doubt it’d be down to 130 days, which would be 10% of days. 
 

Maybe the Ruling bodies have acted to make the PCC more active. 

Fwiw…

 

I posted 157 rounds in 2023, and I had 16 rounds with a PCC adjustment, so almost exactly 10%.

 

But there’s a catch, and it’s a big one; 13 of the 16 PCC adjustments were in tournament rounds, out of 37 tournament rounds.  So had I not played any tournaments, the percentage of PCC adjustments would have been VERY different.  
 

35% of my tournament rounds in 2023 had a PCC adjustment.  Of my other 2023 rounds, the number is 2%.  I have one round ( out of 6) with a PCC so far this year, and I have played those six rounds in some pretty terrible weather and course conditions, so time will tell if there has been a significant adjustment to the PCC algorithm for weather.

[rogolf]

1 hour ago, bluedot said:

Fwiw…

 

I posted 157 rounds in 2023, and I had 16 rounds with a PCC adjustment, so almost exactly 10%.

 

But there’s a catch, and it’s a big one; 13 of the 16 PCC adjustments were in tournament rounds, out of 37 tournament rounds.  So had I not played any tournaments, the percentage of PCC adjustments would have been VERY different.  
 

35% of my tournament rounds in 2023 had a PCC adjustment.  Of my other 2023 rounds, the number is 2%.  I have one round ( out of 6) with a PCC so far this year, and I have played those six rounds in some pretty terrible weather and course conditions, so time will tell if there has been a significant adjustment to the PCC algorithm for weather.

PCC is not weather-based, it is purely score-based.

[bluedot]

39 minutes ago, rogolf said:

PCC is not weather-based, it is purely score-based.

I understand that; I’ve not only pointed that out numerous times in this thread, but I think the data from my 2023 scores is proof positive of that as well.  I posted all of that in response to the “10%” post.

 

My understanding is that the algorithm may have been tweaked for 2024, but I haven’t seen evidence of that yet, though with an admittedly small sample size.  Sorry if I didn’t make all of that clear; I thought I had.

[bcjim]

Nuke the whole thing or make it transparent. Not the algorithm necessarily,  just when and where it occurs. 

 

 

[iacas]

7 minutes ago, bcjim said:

Nuke the whole thing or make it transparent. Not the algorithm necessarily,  just when and where it occurs. 

 

It is. You can look on anyone's GHIN and see it.

[DaveLeeNC]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

It is. You can look on anyone's GHIN and see it.

 

I doubt that approach answers to poster's question. I assume that the question is (for example) "yesterday was some really crappy weather. What was the PCC on course ABC yesterday". You have a real easter egg hunt on your hands here unless you happen to have the name of someone that played that particular course on that particular day. 

 

dave

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I doubt that approach answers to poster's question. I assume that the question is (for example) "yesterday was some really crappy weather. What was the PCC on course ABC yesterday". You have a real easter egg hunt on your hands here unless you happen to have the name of someone that played that particular course on that particular day.

 

Or… just call the course and ask. 😄 

 

It's not like it's obscured. Just because you can't go to https://usga.org/pccs-for-the-last-two-months-at-every-course-everywhere doesn't mean it's not out there.

[DaveLeeNC]

10 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

Or… just call the course and ask. 😄 

 

It's not like it's obscured. Just because you can't go to https://usga.org/pccs-for-the-last-two-months-at-every-course-everywhere doesn't mean it's not out there.

It is not worth arguing about but I would say that the word obscured is a perfect description of what has been done here. It is not totally concealed but (using one definition that I have seen for obscure) has been "made dim or indistinct or ...". 

 

dave

[iacas]

2 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

It is not worth arguing about but I would say that the word obscured is a perfect description of what has been done here. It is not totally concealed but (using one definition that I have seen for obscure) has been "made dim or indistinct or ...". 

 

It's clear we disagree.

 

You want them to email every registered golfer a daily list of PCCs across the globe; I say you can look it up or make a phone call if you really want to know.

 

And yes, I'm exaggerating your point a bit. But, we still just disagree. It's not obscured. It's out there and you can easily find it. You disagree how easily "easily" is.

[rogolf]

There is probably about 0.1% of golfers in the world who care about how the PCC is calculated, but it is something for them to complain about!

[davep043]

1 hour ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I doubt that approach answers to poster's question. I assume that the question is (for example) "yesterday was some really crappy weather. What was the PCC on course ABC yesterday". You have a real easter egg hunt on your hands here unless you happen to have the name of someone that played that particular course on that particular day. 

 

dave

 Anyone with admin access can get a report of every PCC at any course within your authorized golf association for a specific range of dates.  Admins would include the Handicap Committee chair and some or all of the pro shop staff.  I just checked, in Virginia there were only 4 PCCs applied in the past week.   No surprise, looking at the snow still on the ground outside my window here.

[Newby]

2 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

"yesterday was some really crappy weather. What was the PCC on course ABC yesterday". 

 

Don't forget, it's not about weather per se, it's about actual scores and expected scores.

[sui generis]

Beats me why anyone cares about this tweak. 😉

[DaveLeeNC]

2 hours ago, davep043 said:

 Anyone with admin access can get a report of every PCC at any course within your authorized golf association for a specific range of dates.  Admins would include the Handicap Committee chair and some or all of the pro shop staff.  I just checked, in Virginia there were only 4 PCCs applied in the past week.   No surprise, looking at the snow still on the ground outside my window here.

 

Or stated another way, for all practical purposes none of the members of our club have direct access to the data. 

 

I don't think the USGA 'owes me this info'. And I don't have an issue with them not making it readily available. But just because I am a numbers guy, I would be monitoring this just to satisfy my own curiosity (if I could easily get my hands on it). 

 

dave

Edited January 24 by DaveLeeNC

[iacas]

4 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

Or stated another way, for all practical purposes none of the members of our club have direct access to the data. 

 

I don't think the USGA 'owes me this info'. And I don't have an issue with them not making it readily available. But just because I am a numbers guy, I would be monitoring this just to satisfy my own curiosity (if I could easily get my hands on it). 

 

I don't know why it bugs you so much. You could:

• Ask the head pro.
• Look at the scores of someone you know played that day.
• Ask someone on the committee.

Just because they're not blasting the info out there to everyone doesn't mean they're restricting access to it. And they have reasons for not making it too easy, as has been discussed.

[davep043]

On 1/23/2024 at 11:40 AM, bluedot said:

My understanding is that the algorithm may have been tweaked for 2024, but I haven’t seen evidence of that yet, though with an admittedly small sample size.

If you look back to the very first post in this thread, you'll see a press release saying that the change will take effect in the middle of 2022.  I don't believe there's been an additional change, but I could be wrong.