[Mark Mammel]

A note from the Left Coast and the Heartland, Minnesota: I've played 106 rounds this year, in California before April 15 and in Minnesota (mostly) since then. I have only 1 score with PCC -1, no other adjustments. Somethings odd here!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Yes 2 to 16. If what you say is true why wouldn’t the USGA say that? The RDGA our Allied is telling me our local clubs are seeing the same.

That's a pretty small sample size to be running around saying "8x." If it was ONE different, it'd be 16x, and if it was TWO different, it'd be "infinitely more."

I'd wager a lot of money your local clubs are not seeing an 8X increase. The PCC when introduced was conservative in nature, so they've let it run for four years, and they ramped it up slightly (emphasis on slightly) this year. That's it.

I have no idea what conversations you're having, and can't speak to that. Only what I know.

YTD, there has been a net increase of 3 PCCs in my posted rounds from last year to this, and that’s out of about 100 rounds YTD both years.

That's more in line with what I'm hearing.

The net of all of that is that I have no trouble believing the USGA when they say they have tweaked the algorithm.  I’d expect nothing less of them.  I am, of course, an unabashed fan of the WHS (and course raters!) so I’m probably predisposed to give the benefit of the doubt on this.

👍🏼

Thank you, Jim, for your post as well.

[John Kavanaugh]

Is the information collected on us by Golf Genius used in the algorithm?

[Rob Marshall]

Yes 2 to 16. If what you say is true why wouldn’t the USGA say that? The RDGA our Allied is telling me our local clubs are seeing the same.

That's a pretty small sample size to be running around saying "8x." If it was ONE different, it'd be 16x, and if it was TWO different, it'd be "infinitely more."

I'd wager a lot of money your local clubs are not seeing an 8X increase. The PCC when introduced was conservative in nature, so they've let it run for four years, and they ramped it up slightly (emphasis on slightly) this year. That's it.

I have no idea what conversations you're having, and can't speak to that. Only what I know.

YTD, there has been a net increase of 3 PCCs in my posted rounds from last year to this, and that’s out of about 100 rounds YTD both years.

That's more in line with what I'm hearing.

The net of all of that is that I have no trouble believing the USGA when they say they have tweaked the algorithm.  I’d expect nothing less of them.  I am, of course, an unabashed fan of the WHS (and course raters!) so I’m probably predisposed to give the benefit of the doubt on this.

👍🏼

Thank you, Jim, for your post as well.

I only know what I’ve be told by Cindy at the USGA and our Allied Association. I’m also more that happy to email anyone a PDF of our 2023 and 2024 PCC reports.


I also don’t think there is a USGA conspiracy going on. I’m telling you what we are experiencing and the USGA is telling me it is alignment with other courses in our area.


What everyone else is saying contradicts what the USGA is telling me. I believe Erik and I believe the others who aren’t seeing the same impact we are. That’s why I have been trying to figure out what’s going on.

[Bryan Izatt]

Has anyone in Canada seen PCCs applied to their score?  I have 19 scores entered in Canada and 10 from Florida in 2024.  When I look at the Handicap Calculation web page it says:
No PCC adjustments applied.

I have had 2 PCC's out of about 200 rounds in the last two years in Ontario, so it is applied.  In 50 rounds in Florida, I had 3 PCC adjustments.

Thanks Bryan - how do you see the PCC adjustment on rounds that are not on your last 20 rounds?  I was going from the Handicap Calculation page of the Golf Canada handicapping site.  I see the Adj column but that doesn't appear to be the PCC.

On the Golf Canada posting site, hit "View All".  That gives you the most recent 20 posted rounds.  At the bottom, hit "Next Page" to see earlier rounds.  I've never seen anything in the "Adj" column.  Not sure what it's for.  The PCC shows as a hat " ^ " symbol beside the affected differential in the "Diff" column.  You have to do the math to see what the correction was. 


Diff = (Score - Course rating - PCC) * (113/Slope)


The GHIN system in the US is much more transparent.  There is a column for PCC.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Thanks Bryan.  I have had two PCCs in the last year - both at rounds played at Reunion in Florida.  So I have had PCC adjustments in 2 of 10 rounds in Florida.  I also have PCC adjustments for two rounds at Cabot Links last Sep.  Despite having WAY more rounds at my home club of Scarboro I have not had a PCC at that course since Sep 2022.  At my home club I have played about 70 times since the beginning of the 2022 golf season with one PCC adjustment.  Yet in ten rounds at Reunion in 2024 I had two PCC adjustments, but in ten rounds at Reunion in 2023 I had zero adjustments.
It is anecdotal but I would say that the PCC applies much more frequently in the US and more in the last year than in prior years.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Yet in ten rounds at Reunion in 2024 I had two PCC adjustments, but in ten rounds at Reunion in 2023 I had zero adjustments.

Oh no, an infinite % increase! 

[Jim_Coleman]

   Is this any more complicated than an above average number of PCC adjustments means nothing more than a wrong course and slope rating?  I know that at my course -1 adjustments occur more than 20% of the time.  Our course rating and slope are too high and our handicaps are too low, probably by at least a stroke.

[Rob Marshall]

   Is this any more complicated than an above average number of PCC adjustments means nothing more than a wrong course and slope rating?  I know that at my course -1 adjustments occur more than 20% of the time.  Our course rating and slope are too high and our handicaps are too low, probably by at least a stroke.

I agree, it’s really saying the course is rated harder than it should be and I believe that my course is rated harder than it should be. However the course this year isn’t playing and different than last year.


You also can’t just look at your posted rounds, you need to look at the reports that show everyday.

[Wayne_Kozun]

   Is this any more complicated than an above average number of PCC adjustments means nothing more than a wrong course and slope rating?  I know that at my course -1 adjustments occur more than 20% of the time.  Our course rating and slope are too high and our handicaps are too low, probably by at least a stroke.

Or a place with highly variable weather.  Links courses that are susceptible to high winds should see more PCC adjustments. Or inland courses where there is lots of wind you will see a similar effect.  Isn't that the reason for the PCC in the first place?

Also, the ball flies farther in hot and humid weather.  So the course will play slightly shorter on days when it is really hot and longer on days when it is really cold. But that difference may not be significant enough to affect scores.

[Rob Marshall]

It’s harder to get a + PCC than a negative according to our Allied Association. Negatives can be reported as a fraction of a stroke and positives start at 1.


They made a change and for whatever reason we have seen an 8x increase. In our area they are saying thats the norm. Other areas apparently it’s not.

[Bryan Izatt]

Thanks Bryan.  I have had two PCCs in the last year - both at rounds played at Reunion in Florida.  So I have had PCC adjustments in 2 of 10 rounds in Florida.  I also have PCC adjustments for two rounds at Cabot Links last Sep.  Despite having WAY more rounds at my home club of Scarboro I have not had a PCC at that course since Sep 2022.  At my home club I have played about 70 times since the beginning of the 2022 golf season with one PCC adjustment.  Yet in ten rounds at Reunion in 2024 I had two PCC adjustments, but in ten rounds at Reunion in 2023 I had zero adjustments.
It is anecdotal but I would say that the PCC applies much more frequently in the US and more in the last year than in prior years.

More anecdotal info - in Florida Jan to Mar I had 3 PCC's in 2024 and 3 in 2023, so no change year to year.  The PCC was applied less than 10% each year.  In all 6 cases it was a + adjustment and most likely due to weather or course setup or both.  In Ontario the PCC was applied very infrequently, less than 3% and were - adjustments at different courses.  So, yes the US seems to more frequently apply it.  Perhaps different associations have different break points for when the PCC is applied.

[Wayne_Kozun]

The other thing that seems strange to me is that the PCC seems to be applied more at resort courses which, I would think, see fewer rounds entered as a larger portion of rounds would be played by people that don't keep a handicap. At  my club you tend to get nagged if you don't enter a score.
So it seems that PCC isn't applied as often in Ontario/Canada, or at least not at Scarboro or Wyndance.

[Bryan Izatt]

It’s harder to get a + PCC than a negative according to our Allied Association. Negatives can be reported as a fraction of a stroke and positives start at 1.

Not sure why the system would make a + harder to get than a negative.  In my scores in the FSGA in the winter season I had 3 PCC adjustment in about 40 rounds and all were +.  In two years there I have had only + adjustments and no negative adjustments.  Two of them were +0.5, so your second statement is not correct, at least for the FSGA.  And there was a +2.  In a bit of random checking in your RDGA I didn't see any fractional negative adjustments. They were all -1's.
 

They made a change and for whatever reason we have seen an 8x increase. In our area they are saying thats the norm. Other areas apparently it’s not.

Perhaps you could ask the USGA if local associations, like the RDGA, can adjust the system parameters to generate more or less PCC's.  Have you checked players at other RDGA courses to see if they have the same kind of 8X change?  I did a few random checks of low handicap frequent golfers and they had a few -1 adjustments, but not as much as your club.  Your club may simply be rated poorly.

[John Kavanaugh]

Perhaps snowbirdism is a factor in the algorithm. It was always tough competing in the early season against the golfer who spent all winter in Florida. I can see a scenario where a -1 PCC would even the playing field.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It’s harder to get a + PCC than a negative according to our Allied Association. Negatives can be reported as a fraction of a stroke and positives start at 1.

Neither of those are accurate. + PCCs lower the differential, and most players experiencing "conditions" of some kind (even a tournament on a really nice day) shoot higher scores. It's rarer for players to, en masse, shoot lower triggering a -1. PCCs are all whole numbers for 18 holes: -1, +1, +2, +3. There are three levels of positive PCCs, and only the one negative PCC.

They made a change and for whatever reason we have seen an 8x increase.

Please stop with the "8x increase" as long as it's based on a TINY number like "2 -> 16." If you could show 200 became 1600, then you're talking about an actual sample size. As I said earlier, if it was ONE different, it'd be a 16x increase, and two lower makes it an infinite increase.

Yes, 16/2 = 8, but it's sensationalist to call it an 8x increase with such tiny numbers. It's like claiming someone is a 0.400 hitter in MLB when they've had five at bats.

[Charlie Goerges]

Erik, you're likely right that it's probably nothing to worry about, but it's not an unreasonable thing to check up on based on the increase. I mean if my water bill goes up 20% in a month, I'm going to go check the water heater for leaks, even if it's most likely that it's from miscellaneous extra watering or showers or whatever.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik, you're likely right that it's probably nothing to worry about, but it's not an unreasonable thing to check up on based on the increase. I mean if my water bill goes up 20% in a month, I'm going to go check the water heater for leaks, even if it's most likely that it's from miscellaneous extra watering or showers or whatever.

Yeah, nothing I disagree with there. I'm just not down with the sensationalist stuff with tiny sample sizes/numbers.

[Rob Marshall]

It’s harder to get a + PCC than a negative according to our Allied Association. Negatives can be reported as a fraction of a stroke and positives start at 1.

Neither of those are accurate. + PCCs lower the differential, and most players experiencing "conditions" of some kind (even a tournament on a really nice day) shoot higher than their index. It's rare for players to, en masse, shoot lower triggering a -1. PCCs are all whole numbers for 18 holes: -1, +1, +2, +3. There are three levels of positive PCCs, and only the one negative PCC.

They made a change and for whatever reason we have seen an 8x increase.

Please stop with the "8x increase" as long as it's based on a TINY number like "2 -> 16." If you could show 200 became 1600, then you're talking about an actual sample size. As I said earlier, if it was ONE different, it'd be a 16x increase, and two lower makes it an infinite increase.

Yes, 16/2 = 8, but it's sensationalist to call it an 8x increase with such tiny numbers. It's like claiming someone is a 0.400 hitter in MLB when they've had five at bats.

I agree there are no fractions. I just looked it up. I must have misunderstood her explanation as to why there were more negative adjustments than positive when we spoke on the phone. Here is her exact email:


"Good Afternoon, 
"Thank you for reaching out to the RDGA regarding the PCC frequency you are seeing.  You did not leave a phone number to call you back at, so I thought I would email you regarding Penfield's PCCs.  I checked into the PCC history at Penfield Country Club, and there is nothing abnormal or anything that would raise any red flags.  The number of PCCs Penfield has had over the last five years is right in line with the expectation and goal of the USGA and World Handicapping System.  The conditions to trigger a PCC were tightened last year by the World Handicap System, so the slight increase in PCCs would be expected.  Negative PCCs are far more common in the World Handicapping System than positive PCCs, in order to be more conservative and cautious when applying positive PCCs and thus lowering your score differential that would then lower your handicap index.  Here is a link to more resources on PCC:
 
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/topics/playing-conditions-calculation.html


We went from 2 to 16 as of 8/2/24. With no positive adjustments. That's an 8x. I'm not trying to sensationalize anything.
.
I appreciate everyone's comments. Thanks for posting your opinions and experiences. Good to know this isn't a problem across the board.

[Tim Martin]

It’s harder to get a + PCC than a negative according to our Allied Association. Negatives can be reported as a fraction of a stroke and positives start at 1.

Neither of those are accurate. + PCCs lower the differential, and most players experiencing "conditions" of some kind (even a tournament on a really nice day) shoot higher than their index. It's rare for players to, en masse, shoot lower triggering a -1. PCCs are all whole numbers for 18 holes: -1, +1, +2, +3. There are three levels of positive PCCs, and only the one negative PCC.

They made a change and for whatever reason we have seen an 8x increase.

Please stop with the "8x increase" as long as it's based on a TINY number like "2 -> 16." If you could show 200 became 1600, then you're talking about an actual sample size. As I said earlier, if it was ONE different, it'd be a 16x increase, and two lower makes it an infinite increase.

Yes, 16/2 = 8, but it's sensationalist to call it an 8x increase with such tiny numbers. It's like claiming someone is a 0.400 hitter in MLB when they've had five at bats.

I agree there are no fractions. I just looked it up. I must have misunderstood her explanation as to why there were more negative adjustments than positive when we spoke on the phone. Here is her exact email:


"Good Afternoon, 
"Thank you for reaching out to the RDGA regarding the PCC frequency you are seeing.  You did not leave a phone number to call you back at, so I thought I would email you regarding Penfield's PCCs.  I checked into the PCC history at Penfield Country Club, and there is nothing abnormal or anything that would raise any red flags.  The number of PCCs Penfield has had over the last five years is right in line with the expectation and goal of the USGA and World Handicapping System.  The conditions to trigger a PCC were tightened last year by the World Handicap System, so the slight increase in PCCs would be expected.  Negative PCCs are far more common in the World Handicapping System than positive PCCs, in order to be more conservative and cautious when applying positive PCCs and thus lowering your score differential that would then lower your handicap index.  Here is a link to more resources on PCC:
 
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/topics/playing-conditions-calculation.html


We went from 2 to 16 as of 8/2/24. With no positive adjustments. That's an 8x. I'm not trying to sensationalize anything.
.
I appreciate everyone's comments. Thanks for posting your opinions and experiences. Good to know this isn't a problem across the board.

So much for being on the Generally Ignore list. Dare to dream huh?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So much for being on the Generally Ignore list. Dare to dream huh?

Generally isn't always. Duh.

Thanks for contributing your usual nothingness to the actual discussion rather than just making a personal comment.

[Bryan Izatt]

It’s harder to get a + PCC than a negative according to our Allied Association. Negatives can be reported as a fraction of a stroke and positives start at 1.

Neither of those are accurate. + PCCs lower the differential, and most players experiencing "conditions" of some kind (even a tournament on a really nice day) shoot higher scores. It's rarer for players to, en masse, shoot lower triggering a -1. PCCs are all whole numbers for 18 holes: -1, +1, +2, +3. There are three levels of positive PCCs, and only the one negative PCC.


Eric,  I don't think that the PCC's are all whole numbers, despite what the USGA rules say.  In Florida, the FSGA has allocated fractional PCC's.  I've had two +0.5 PCC's this year.  Perhaps it's because they are 9 hole rounds - one where they grossed up the 9 hole score to get an 18 hole diff and the other where they combined two nine hole rounds into one 18 hole round. Apparently there are many mysteries in the PCC.

42N    01/17/2024    34.6/123    +0.5      14.0    Spring Run Golf Club

83H    01/15/2024    67.3/120      -           14.8    Spring Run Golf Club

80H    01/12/2024    66.1/114       -          13.8    Spring Run Golf Club

85C    01/10/2024    66.1/114       -          18.7    Spring Run Golf Club

83N    01/05/2024    67.8/123      -           14.1    Spring Run Golf Club

82H    01/05/2024    68.6/125      -           12.1    Spring Run Golf Club

91N    01/02/2024    68.6/125    +0.5       19.8    Spring Run Golf Club

They made a change and for whatever reason we have seen an 8x increase.

Please stop with the "8x increase" as long as it's based on a TINY number like "2 -> 16." If you could show 200 became 1600, then you're talking about an actual sample size. As I said earlier, if it was ONE different, it'd be a 16x increase, and two lower makes it an infinite increase.

Yes, 16/2 = 8, but it's sensationalist to call it an 8x increase with such tiny numbers. It's like claiming someone is a 0.400 hitter in MLB when they've had five at bats.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Yes, .5 adjustments happen with 9 hole postings. Nothing to see here, or anywhere. This is a strange “conspiracy theory” thread it seems to me.

[John Kavanaugh]

Rangefinders, portable speakers, cameras, drones, Golf Genius and secret algorithms. It’s not a conspiracy theory.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Eric,  I don't think that the PCC's are all whole numbers, despite what the USGA rules say.

You quoted me as saying "PCCs are all whole numbers for 18 holes: -1, +1, +2, +3" and then gave nine-hole PCCs (the "N" in your small list).

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()