[Wayne_Kozun]

A change in the new World Handicapping system, at least in North America, was the addition of a playing conditions calculation to adjust for days when scoring was very difficult, or easy.  This is in section 5.6 of this document:  https://cdn.golfcanada.ca/app/uploads/golfcanada/production/2015/03/15131136/Golf-Canada-WHS-Rules-of-Handicap-%E2%80%93-ENG-Final.pdf
I have entered about 50 scores per year and I have never seen this to cause an adjustment to my Differential.  I am therefore wondering if this is ever used?  Or maybe it is never used here in Canada?

Has anyone ever seen this used?  If so, in which country.  I play most of my golf in Canada, although I play about 10 rounds per year in the US.  Some of my rounds have been on seaside courses with very strong winds that did affect the scoring on that day.
How would you know it was being used?  There would be a difference between your differential and your adjusted differential.  Our system here in Canada shows both on your scoring history page but they are always the same.  See below:

Date	Course	Holes	Tees	CR/SL	Score	Diff	Adj	Adj Diff
2023-09-17	Scarboro Golf & Country Club	18	Blue	71.2 / 135	79  *	6.5	0.0	6.5
2023-09-02	Scarboro Golf & Country Club	18	Silver	71.7 / 136	82  *	8.6	0.0	8.6
2023-08-10	Scarboro Golf & Country Club	18	Blue	71.2 / 135	82  *	9.0	0.0	9.0
2023-08-06	Scarboro Golf & Country Club	18	Blue	71.2 / 135	88	14.1	0.0	14.1
2023-08-03	Scarboro Golf & Country Club	18	Blue	71.2 / 135	80  *	7.4	0.0	7.4
2023-07-28	Cabot Links	18	Green	70.9 / 125	82	10.0	0.0	10.0
2023-07-27	Cabot Links	18	Green	70.9 / 125	81  *	9.1	0.0	9.1
2023-07-26	Cabot Links	18	Green	70.9 / 125	80  *	8.2	0.0	8.2
2023-07-26	Cabot Cliffs	18	Green	72.0 / 138	84	9.8	0.0	9.8

[Matt Schoolfield]

Yes, rarely. I can give you all the times. The USGA app has a PCC icon that is usually blank but will have a number when it is used:





09-03-2023 - Lincoln Park GC - PCC: +3 (heavy fog prevented us from using our range finders, I had a gps thankfully)

04-12-2022 - Metropolitan GL - PCC: +1

01-28-2022 - Lake Chabot GC - PCC: +1 (probably extremely wet/rain in winter in the bay area)

03-14-2021 - Gleneagles GC - PCC: +1

02-06-2021 - Lincoln Park GC - PCC: +2

11-24-2020 - Lincoln Park GC - PCC: +2 (probably extremely wet/rain)

10-11-2020 - Lincoln Park GC - PCC: +2

08-23-2020 - Sharp Park GC - PCC: -1 (not sure why negative, perhaps extra calm)

08-09-2020 - Gleneagles GC - PCC: +1

07-12-2020 - Gleneagles GC - PCC: +1

That's it. I probably play once or twice a week, and it's only happened 10 times in the last 3 years.

I play (match play) in extremely inclement weather most would avoid. If you don't play in heavy rain/wind/fog, you might not see these results.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Thats Matt.  I have tried emailing Golf Canada to see if they have enabled this functionality.

[Stewart Abramson]

I play two or three times a week when I'm in Florida. I haven't had a score adjusted for weather in 2023, but it did happen twice in 2022 when I played in inclement weather

[Jim_Coleman]

   It happens very rarely, maybe once or twice per year. And, at least at my club, the adjustment has always been downward. I assume that means the course is rated  a bit harder than it plays.

[Bryan Izatt]

Wayne,


It is enabled here in Ontario.  I've had it applied at Rattlesnake, Glencairn and Bond Head a few times over the last three years.  It shows up as a "^" symbol beside the differential.  Click on the red "?" at the top of the Diff column for the explanation.  You have to post before midnight on the day of play for it to be calculated.  If you post later, it is not calculated.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Wayne,


It is enabled here in Ontario.  I've had it applied at Rattlesnake, Glencairn and Bond Head a few times over the last three years.  It shows up as a "^" symbol beside the differential.  Click on the red "?" at the top of the Diff column for the explanation.  You have to post before midnight on the day of play for it to be calculated.  If you post later, it is not calculated.

Thanks Bryan.  I almost always post same day but I haven't seen it.  I am surprised as this year it has been pretty windy on a number of days.  I don't see any adjustments for your scores, but I only see the last 21 of your scores as I believe there are restrictions on how much info is publicly available if we are not members of the same club.

[Ian_L]

I play most of my golf in CA and have had one score adjusted in CA (-1) since 2020. All my other adjusted scores have been golf trips: one to Bandon and one to the Pinehurst area, where I received + adjustments every round, most of them by two or three strokes. Generally perfect scoring conditions. I wonder if the numbers say certain states este their courses too easy or hard, and this is how they try to standardize?

[A.G._Crockett]

PCC adjustments aren’t necessarily about weather; it’s an algorithm that kicks in whenever that day’s scores scores are unexpectedly higher or lower on that particular course.  Out of 111 posted rounds this year, I’ve had 7 rounds with PCC adjustments, and all but two were tournament rounds played in very good weather, ranging from +1 to +3, which is the amount by which the differential for that round is changed.  Only one of the 7 was a minus, and that was a -1 at my home course; I have no idea what that day was like.


Fwiw, a guy in the CGA office told me that the three courses in the Carolinas that have PCC adjustments the most often are Pine Needles, Mid Pines, and Tobacco Road.  I played a two day tournament at MP and PN earlier this year, and there was +3 PCC adjustment for all players in the tournament both days.  Which means, pretty simply, that the field played the courses approximately 3 shots worse than expected.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I play two or three times a week when I'm in Florida. I haven't had a score adjusted for weather in 2023, but it did happen twice in 2022 when I played in inclement weather

It's not for weather. It's just an algorithm that looks to see if scores are within a normal range or if, for whatever reason, the course played more difficult or easier that day.

Edit: AG beat me to it. In my last 20, FWIW, I have a -1 at Scioto. Those are pretty rare.

[Bret Lawrence]

I’ve played in a few tournaments with over-the-top pin placements that have yielded positive PCC adjustments.  One tourney I played, they had just aerated and top dressed the greens.  It was like putting on sand greens. The PCC adjustment was +3. 


I have had a -1 PCC adjustment twice this year and in both cases I am aware of golfers shooting career low rounds that day.  One round I was playing with an 18-handicapper who made an eagle 2 on a Par 4, finishing the front nine with a 39.  The other round a 10 or 12 handicapper shot 74. In both cases the adjustment was -1 and the conditions and pin placements seemed normal, but a few guys had great days which clearly skewed the algorithm. 


A -1 PCC adjustment must be a sandbaggers dream come true!

[Jim Sherma]

I wonder what percentage of +3 PCC adjustments are simply a function of tournament rounds where everyone had to putt out?

[Bret Lawrence]

Jim,


I would think there is a strong correlation.  I have only received +3 adjustments for tournament rounds.  I think PCC is strongly correlated to how easy the ball is falling in the hole that day.  The more putts it takes on average, the higher the PCC is going to be.  Tournament rounds are all entered into the computer by the state golf association, so the data is much more representative than a typical day of play.  Many golfers playing on a typical day don’t carry handicaps. Some of the golfers who carry handicaps don’t enter their scores the same day as they play, which negates any of that data for a PCC adjustment. It’s probably easier to get a -1 PCC adjustment on a day when fewer players are entering their scores?


Bret

[A.G._Crockett]

Jim,


I would think there is a strong correlation.  I have only received +3 adjustments for tournament rounds.  I think PCC is strongly correlated to how easy the ball is falling in the hole that day.  The more putts it takes on average, the higher the PCC is going to be.  Tournament rounds are all entered into the computer by the state golf association, so the data is much more representative than a typical day of play.  Many golfers playing on a typical day don’t carry handicaps. Some of the golfers who carry handicaps don’t enter their scores the same day as they play, which negates any of that data for a PCC adjustment. It’s probably easier to get a -1 PCC adjustment on a day when fewer players are entering their scores?


Bret

Some of it might be about playing fully under the Rules, including putting out, but I don’t think that’s most of it, or even the simplest explanation.


I have 49 tournament rounds in GHIN for 2022 and 2023 combined, and 12 of those have a PCC adjustment.  While that is a pretty high percentage relative to casual rounds, I think it’s safe to say that the field in these tournaments are guys that typically play fully under the Rules anyway, including putting out. 


But these are also fields of relatively low indexes playing on courses that aren’t especially familiar AND sometimes with a rather tough setup.  I’ve played two tournaments that were 2 day tournaments on the same course, and in both cases, there was a PCC adjustment the first day but not the second. In the Carolinas Super Senior at Stono Ferry in Charleston, there was a PCC OF +3 the first day, but nothing on the second day; same thing in the NC Super Senior in Mooresville, where it was +1 the first day, but nothing the second day. By contrast, in a two-day with one round on Mid Pines and the other on Pine Needles, there was a PCC of +3 BOTH days. 


Any explanation of that would just be a guess, but MY guess is that the second day’s scores were better on the same course because the field was at least marginally more familiar with the golf course, with the MP/PN scores as a direct contrast.


The other common factor in the 12 rounds that had a PCC adjustment is that they were on courses generally considered to be above average in difficulty, especially the greens and green speeds.  The more “unusual” the greens, the more likely there is to be a PCC adjustment. 

[Jim Hoak]

Looking at my current score "stats," I have 2 of my 20 scores adjusted for PCC.  I would think this is about typical for me--about 10% of the time.
However, these adjustments are only -1, and I can't ever recall seeing anything other than a -1 or +1. 

[A.G._Crockett]

Looking at my current score "stats," I have 2 of my 20 scores adjusted for PCC.  I would think this is about typical for me--about 10% of the time.
However, these adjustments are only -1, and I can't ever recall seeing anything other than a -1 or +1.

Likewise, two of my last 20 have PCC adjustments, BUT both were tournament rounds. One was a +1, but the other was a +3, and that’s my 4th +3 of 2023, all in tournaments.


The +3 in my last 20 scores was in a four ball with an absurd course setup for a bunch on non-members with no practice round available.  Heavy rough and greens running 12 (always a fun combo!) and a number of really absurd pin placements. Very high scores, and VERY slow play.

[jeffwarne]

uggghhh...

[A.G._Crockett]

uggghhh...

[jeffwarne]

  I played a two day tournament at MP and PN earlier this year, and there was +3 PCC adjustment for all players in the tournament both days.  Which means, pretty simply, that the field played the courses approximately 3 shots worse than expected.

My uggghhh is a resonse to how complicated the handicap system is, and that it means nothing if garbage in, and garbage out.




"the field played the courses approximately 3 shots worse than expected"


I promise you that if Vegas was setting the lines on scoring on a given "tournament" day,
that higher scores(in this case 3) would ALWAYS be expected.

[A.G._Crockett]

  I played a two day tournament at MP and PN earlier this year, and there was +3 PCC adjustment for all players in the tournament both days.  Which means, pretty simply, that the field played the courses approximately 3 shots worse than expected.

My uggghhh is a resonse to how complicated the handicap system is, and that it means nothing if garbage in, and garbage out.




"the field played the courses approximately 3 shots worse than expected"


I promise you that if Vegas was setting the lines on scoring on a given "tournament" day,
that higher scores(in this case 3) would ALWAYS be expected.

Jeff,


Four points of clarification:


1. The PCC adjustment doesn’t add any complexity to the system; it’s an algorithm that kicks in automatically.  The golfer himself does nothing; it’s 100% administrative. As I’m sure you know, in tournament lay, we don’t even enter our own scores into GHIN; the committee does that.  Once we sign cards and turn them in, it’s out of our hands, and the PCC always is.


2. At least for me, in the tournaments I play, the scores are NOT always higher, or at least by enough to make the PCC kick in.  As I wrote earlier, there has been a PCC adjustment in 12 of my 49 tournament rounds over the last two years, and while 25% is far higher than the number of PCC adjustments for “casual” play, it’s nowhere near “always”.


3. IMO (and it’s ONLY that) the reason for the increased frequency of PCC adjustments in these tournaments is easily explained; it’s a bunch of guys playing tough and less familiar courses ALL ON THE SAME DAY AT THE SAME TIME.  If I go to Pine Needles and shoot 85 with a 5 index in casual play, there won’t be a PCC adjustment just for me.  But if 110 guys go there and shoot higher than normal scores because those greens are just TOUGH, much moreso than any of us normally see, that’s a different story, and the PCC becomes much more likely.


4. The net effect of the PCC is more accurate handicaps; it limits the movement, especially upward.  I think that’s a good thing.

[Matt Schoolfield]

it’s a bunch of guys playing tough and less familiar courses ALL ON THE SAME DAY AT THE SAME TIME.

Call me cynical, but I think vanity indexes are the more likely culprit.

On the PCC system, my only real problem with it, is that it is a subtle, forced buy-in to the USGA/R&A system. It used to be that you could establish a legitimate handicap on your own, even if it was technically unofficial. With the addition of exceptional scores it became impractical, and with PCC it is impossible. While I agree with PCC in general, this is ultimately a bit problematic.

While copyright and patents do not apply to rules of games, by making the aggregation of data itself part of the handicapping system, someone building a golf related database (like myself) can no longer provide individuals their proper index. Unless they are willing to make that data public, I will maintain that the PCC system is more about lock-in and forcing folks into membership than it is about providing more accurate indexes.

[A.G._Crockett]

it’s a bunch of guys playing tough and less familiar courses ALL ON THE SAME DAY AT THE SAME TIME.

Call me cynical, but I think vanity indexes are the more likely culprit.

On the PCC system, my only real problem with it, is that it is a subtle, forced buy-in to the USGA/R&A system. It used to be that you could establish a legitimate handicap on your own, even if it was technically unofficial. With the addition of exceptional scores it became impractical, and with PCC it is impossible. While I agree with PCC in general, this is ultimately a bit problematic.

While copyright and patents do not apply to rules of games, by making the aggregation of data itself part of the handicapping system, someone building a golf related database (like myself) can no longer provide individuals their proper index. Unless they are willing to make that data public, I will maintain that the PCC system is more about lock-in and forcing folks into membership than it is about providing more accurate indexes.

Matt, we may have to agree to disagree on this, but I think I can say with some assurance that the guys in the tournaments I play do NOT have vanity handicaps.  With the exception of the Carolinas championship tournaments, which are gross only, both the individual and the four ball CGA tournaments pay more net than gross places, and any player that wins any tournament, net or gross, qualifies for the end of the year Tournament of Champions; this year it’s two days at Mid Pines and Pine Needles.  My partner and I are in from a tournament where we finished second gross, but won net. 




You’d have to be nuts to pay the entry fees plus travel, etc, and play with a vanity cap that would cut your chances of winning more than in half.  More than that, I think most tournament golfers tend to play fully under the Rules to better prepare for competitive golf; again, you’d be crazy to do otherwise.




I also disagree about any sort of “forced buy in” to GHIN, including PCC adjustments.  The percentage of active golfers that don’t maintain a handicap makes it pretty clear that nobody is being forced to have a USGA handicap, and if your club requires it for club competitions, that’s a club decision; the USGA just provides the service.




There are few topics that get more attention here or elsewhere than sandbagging.  Indexes are supposed to express potential, and the PCC helps with the accuracy of that.  I can’t see how that is bad in any respect.

[Kalen Braley]

I'd have to agree with AG 1000% on this one.

I don't doubt vanity caps exist, but while I haven't played anywhere near the amount of tourneys AG has, its almost always the case where you see a 12 shoot a 77 vs a 5 shoot 83. 

[Matt Schoolfield]

I'd have to agree with AG 1000% on this one.

I don't doubt vanity caps exist, but while I haven't played anywhere near the amount of tourneys AG has, its almost always the case where you see a 12 shoot a 77 vs a 5 shoot 83. 

I don't disagree with you here, but when it comes to PCC, it's not going to be the outliers that do the heavy lifting. The way the systems is designed, the PCC will come from a subtle shift in the field. If the average player misses one, single tap-in putt they'd likely pick up on a casual day, then the PCC should (AFAIK) end up as +1. The PCC only shifts when the whole field's expected result changes, not when an individual goes low or high.

I want to make it clear that when i use the term "vanity handicap" I do not mean it in a normative sense that is somehow derogatory. I mean it in the sense that, for practical purposes, folks on casual rounds bend the rules for practical reasons because it's not a tournament, and you'll see a gallery drop or gimmie's for pace-of-play, and other reasons. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to do, and we should expect it to show up in the tournament PCC.

I will correct myself. I do completely agree with AG when it comes to tournaments involving travel. If the field does not have the chance to know the course intimately, we should expect them to perform slightly worse than they would on their home courses. Nuance matters, and it'll likely show up in average performance when the entire field is traveling.

I also disagree about any sort of “forced buy in” to GHIN, including PCC adjustments.  The percentage of active golfers that don’t maintain a handicap makes it pretty clear that nobody is being forced to have a USGA handicap, and if your club requires it for club competitions, that’s a club decision; the USGA just provides the service.

I don't presume to know how it is for the other folks here, but I play regularly with a substantial number of people who do not have any desire to join a club. They play casually, and like to maintain a handicap for the purposes of playing with their friends of different skill levels. There is an entire industry of free apps for folks to track their handicap. I completely understand that my complaint is pedantic, but while these casual players could maintain an effectively practical (unofficial) handicap, the idea that we have now tied the calculation of one's handicap to the single governing body, I think, is ultimately problematic. If we pretend to care about making the game accessible to the next generation, tying the handicapping system itself to club membership is not something I want in an ideal world. I obviously think the PCC system is good for handicapping, I just think there are real tradeoffs, even if they aren't serious enough for most people to care about. An easy way to placate my mild concerns, would simply to allow access to the PCC data to developers especially if developers allow the governing bodies access to their data as a form of independent verification of PCC calculations.

[jeffwarne]

There is no doubt that AG plays in a different circle than 99% of average golfers.
They are competing in tournaments, keeping score and are used to playing by the rules and are putting out, because to not do so would handicap them in the future in the frequent events they play.


I'm pleased that the system seems to work well for those that take it seriously, and frequently compete in events with like -minded and like processed people.


I guess my Vegas projection only works with the other 99%  [size=78%]who rarely putt out, play by the rules, or play stroke play events.[/size]
[size=78%]Some use that to their advantage, others to great disadvantage.[/size]

[size=78%]But that's not the fault of the handicap system.[/size]

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()