[Sean_A]

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.

I fail to understand why it isn't a good thing for one overall body in a country to administer the handicap system. How much does it cost to join the USGA and get a proper handicap? When I last did it wasn't necessary to join a club. I would be surprised if this has changed.

That said, PCC calculations are highly problematic because they rarely kick in for casual rounds. Those playing in comps get the benefit of the PCC.

It's been a rough ride changing the UK to the WHS, which is essentially the US system. I still don't believe many links have appropriate ratings when compared to US counterpart parkland courses. To me its obvious the rating criteria needs to be adjusted. That adjustment used to be the equivalent of PCC. back in the day. It was usual for for the comp scratch score to move up at least one shot. Now, it's a rarity even in comps. Perhaps the WHS should have been rolled out after all the bugs were worked out. For certain, the system should be the same everywhere, which isn't the case now.

Ciao

[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,


I have no idea whether or not the USGA does, or would, make the PCC algorithm public to the various other services that calculate handicaps.  And I don’t really care, since those other indexes aren’t useable for entry into any sort of event that I know of.  My Garmin GPS watch, for instance automatically keeps a handicap for me (which interestingly is nearly a full stroke higher than my USGA index), but it’s not like that index is useable; it’s just information.




But it wouldn’t make a bit of difference if the USGA made the PCC algorithm public (assuming it isn’t, which I don’t KNOW to be the case) because it would be essentially useless to other handicapping services.  The reason, of course, is that the PCC isn’t an individual matter, or based on weather, or anything like that.  It kicks in ONLY when a TOTAL set of scores from a given course on a given day are unexpectedly high or low relative to all players with USGA handicaps on that course on that day. 




I think it’s safe to say that on a given course on a given day, the number of golfers using any other handicap service beside the USGA is likely to be minuscule, and adjusting the differential of an individual golfer is decidedly NOT what the PCC is for.  And again, it wouldn’t matter anyway, since those handicaps have no purpose other than for an individual to monitor their own performance.




I’m mildly surprised by the amount of hand wringing here about the PCC, beyond the fact that there is bitching about EVERYTHING on this site nowadays.  It’s an attempt by the USGA to make the handicap system more accurate, especially in regards to sandbagging by those who play in net events, which I think you’d agree is a pretty frequent target of complaint here.




And since it requires literally ZERO effort by the golfer or the club/committee, I can’t see any downside.  Nothing…

[Matt Schoolfield]

How much does it cost to join the USGA and get a proper handicap? When I last did it wasn't necessary to join a club. I would be surprised if this has changed.

Sean, it is my understanding that GHIN is a sort of separate product from USGA membership. GHIN (as far as I know) is only offered to regional bodies. I completely understand why this is the case, because it would be ripe for abuse to simply allow folks to have official handicaps without oversight. However, to get a handicap in my area (NCGA), the base price is $85. Obviously that sounds like nothing at all to folks like us who will trivially spend double that on a single round of golf, but my point is that it is a monetary barrier in an already expensive game. I want golf to be inclusive to folks who book twilight and play with thrift-shop clubs. I'll obviously still respect their non-PCC adjusted handicap, but it seems gatekeepy to me. 10 years ago, it was paper and a calculator. Not something I'm going to fall on my sword over, I just care deeply about the optics of golf, and I think it's a misstep.

I’m mildly surprised by the amount of hand wringing here about the PCC

AG, I hope it is clear that this is a dispassionate position. I focus on small incremental improvement, because the sum of incremental improvements can often outweigh major changes. It is clear that the USGA is a fantastic organization (rated 4-stars by Charity Navigator), and I think that the PCC system is a fantastic use of aggregated data to improve on an existing system. However, I still think the way the system is currently deployed is limiting, even if it's not a big deal. I will generally criticize things that I see adding an unnecessary layer of inaccessibility to the game.

[Sean_A]

How much does it cost to join the USGA and get a proper handicap? When I last did it wasn't necessary to join a club. I would be surprised if this has changed.

Sean, it is my understanding that GHIN is a sort of separate product from USGA membership. GHIN (as far as I know) is only offered to regional bodies. I completely understand why this is the case, because it would be ripe for abuse to simply allow folks to have official handicaps without oversight. However, to get a handicap in my area (NCGA), the base price is $85. Obviously that sounds like nothing at all to folks like us who will trivially spend double that on a single round of golf, but my point is that it is a monetary barrier in an already expensive game. I want golf to be inclusive to folks who book twilight and play with thrift-shop clubs. I'll obviously still respect their non-PCC adjusted handicap, but it seems gatekeepy to me. 10 years ago, it was paper and a calculator. Not something I'm going to fall on my sword over, I just care deeply about the optics of golf, and I think it's a misstep.

I’m mildly surprised by the amount of hand wringing here about the PCC

AG, I hope it is clear that this is a dispassionate position. I focus on small incremental improvement, because the sum of incremental improvements can often outweigh major changes. It is clear that the USGA is a fantastic organization (rated 4-stars by Charity Navigator), and I think that the PCC system is a fantastic use of aggregated data to improve on an existing system. However, I still think the way the system is currently deployed is limiting, even if it's not a big deal. I will generally criticize things that I see adding an unnecessary layer of inaccessibility to the game.

I take your point about inclusivity. What is a reasonable fee to join a golf association?

You used handicap apps because you objected to the price tag of an official handicap? I think AG is more on target in that most people don't need official handicaps. In which case, for any society not wishing to pay up, why not continue to use apps?

Ciao

[Matt Schoolfield]

I take your point about inclusivity. What is a reasonable fee to join a golf association?

Mine is a nuanced point about game being changed such that you need to be a member to have access to the rules, if that makes sense. I think the rules of golf should not be tied to membership. The rules of handicapping part of that. Handicap calculations for participation, are now inexcessible to non-members, but they aren't even manually calculable to member.

To expand on this concern. We now need to install an app on our phones, and accept a terms of service we may or may not want to accept, just to play the game by the rules. While I'm sure all of this is above board, as someone who grew up as a digital native, I've seen this story a dozen times before: an excellent service is offered for convenience. At some point of adoption, lock-in creep starts, and then the app starts requesting unnecessary data, and suddenly you can't use it without it your location freely, contacts, etc. being "freely" given.

Suddenly playing organized golf becomes synonymous with playing golf. I just feel like I should be able to play golf, by the rules, casually with my friends, without a proprietary system being installed on my phone.

You used handicap apps because you objected to the price tag of an official handicap? I think AG is more on target in that most people don't need official handicaps.

It's not the "officialness" that I care about. It's that you simply can't actually play your friends using the same rules. I know I'm being pedantic and none of this really matters, it just seems weird and unnecessary to me. Especially when the decision is coming from a non-profit charitable organization.

[Sean_A]

I take your point about inclusivity. What is a reasonable fee to join a golf association?

Mine is a nuanced point about game being changed such that you need to be a member to have access to the rules, if that makes sense. I think the rules of golf should not be tied to membership. The rules of handicapping part of that. Handicap calculations for participation, are now inexcessible to non-members, but they aren't even manually calculable to member.

To expand on this concern. We now need to install an app on our phones, and accept a terms of service we may or may not want to accept, just to play the game by the rules. While I'm sure all of this is above board, as someone who grew up as a digital native, I've seen this story a dozen times before: an excellent service is offered for convenience. At some point of adoption, lock-in creep starts, and then the app starts requesting unnecessary data, and suddenly you can't use it without it your location freely, contacts, etc. being "freely" given.

Suddenly playing organized golf becomes synonymous with playing golf. I just feel like I should be able to play golf, by the rules, casually with my friends, without a proprietary system being installed on my phone.

You used handicap apps because you objected to the price tag of an official handicap? I think AG is more on target in that most people don't need official handicaps.

It's not the "officialness" that I care about. It's that you simply can't actually play your friends using the same rules. I know I'm being pedantic and none of this really matters, it just seems weird and unnecessary to me. Especially when the decision is coming from a non-profit charitable organization.

I sympathise with your concern over data protection. I was a card and pencil guy when playing comps. I don't carry a phone while playing golf so need to transcribe a score after the round. Before I just dropped a card in a box. On the other hand, t&c have to be signed off for using anything these days...on a phone or not. I ain't losing sleep over it.

I would note that it doesn't matter if you can play by the same handicapping rules as everybody else. What matters is that you use the same handicapping rules as the guys you play with. The second note is that even using the WHS the rules are different depending on the country. The UK has different rules to the US.

All that said, you can either join the system or do the best you can outside of the system. It's like most things in life. It's great to have lots of choice.

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

No.

The way the systems is designed, the PCC will come from a subtle shift in the field.

This is incorrect for almost all reasonable definitions of "subtle."

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.

That's incorrect as well.

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.

It was always tied to the USGA. And if you want to keep your handicap unofficially, you can still look back at scores posted to that course that day and adjust based on the PCC. Also, except for the -1 PCCs, most days that result in a PCC don't count toward your index (i.e. they're not one of your best 8 of your last 20). Think about it… if a bunch of people scored worse… it's probably not one of their better differentials.


The PCC outpaces the "average" change to the differentials. i.e. everyone in the field should average 80, and they shoot 81… you're not going to see a PCC adjustment. The actual adjustment varies based on the # of players - to make up some numbers, 100 golfers who average +2 higher than expected might trigger a +1 PCC, but 50 golfers who average +5 higher than expected might also trigger a +1. It's relatively conservative. It's not nearly like you're saying with missed short putts you'd normally pick up.


And consider also as I noted that your predicted score is likely already outside of your best 8 rounds… so a PCC round is really unlikely to count toward your index.

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.

They aren't. I operate an eClub. You just pay for a GHIN number. There's no actual physical "club." Juniors get free handicaps, too.

Oh, and there are eClubs you can join for $30 to $35.

To expand on this concern. We now need to install an app on our phones, and accept a terms of service we may or may not want to accept, just to play the game by the rules.

This is not true.

[Matt Schoolfield]

Erik, if I am wrong, I would benefit greatly to understand why that is. I do not intend to sap your time by asking you to look things up for me. I mean it in good-faith, and if you can point me in the right direction I would be more helpful.


The $85 I used is the base price NCGA direct membership. The lowest price I’ve ever seen for an e club in SF was ≈$75 in 2018-ish.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik, if I am wrong, I would benefit greatly to understand why that is. I do not intend to sap your time by asking you to look things up for me. I mean it in good-faith, and if you can point me in the right direction I would be more helpful.

It's not my information to give away. I can't share the algorithm even if I had it; I've just seen enough data and examples to know that your assumptions are really far off base. A +1 increase to the average score will almost never trigger a PCC of +1, for example. It's a fairly conservative algorithm.

The $85 I used is the base price NCGA direct membership. The lowest price I’ve ever seen for an e club in SF was ≈$75 in 2018-ish.

And my eClub is $35. I've seen others that are $30. The point remains that you don't need to join a physical club to have a truly official GHIN handicap. I don't think a nine-hole rate is a high price to pay for a year of handicapping, either, even if it is $75 or whatever. And if people just want to gamble or bet or play against their friends, they don't really need a GHIN handicap for it. Plenty of leagues have their own handicap, for example.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I appreciate your input, my rounding errors are likely off, but as it stands, I still hold onto the thrust of my argument. 

Appreciate the perspective of a club operator though. I don’t think this needs to be re-litigated.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I appreciate your input, my rounding errors are likely off, but as it stands, I still hold onto the thrust of my argument.

Of course you do. That doesn't change the fact that you're wrong on almost everything you've said or assumed.

[Matt Schoolfield]

I am completely open to changing my opinion and understanding on the topic. I invite it, as it’s the only way we every learn anything. However, telling me that I’m wrong is wholly different from demonstrating that I am wrong. I, of course say all this, as respectfully as possible. I genuinely can benefit from the input.


I stand with the principle that having an inexpensive out-of-state e-club is unhelpful at courting someone outside of the established golf system. I stand by my views that while the USGA does fine work, it should be careful in weighing the second order consequences of adding barriers between those in the club system and those outside of it. I see no reason that PCC data shouldn’t be publicly accessible (if it isn’t already, which would void most of my argument).


I’m committed to have a full, good-faith discussion on these issues, even if it might bump this thread more than others are interested in. However, at this point it feels like I’m being taken down a peg (appropriately or not) rather than having a mutually beneficial discussion.

[Charlie Goerges]

Pretty poor on the tone here Erik. Matt says $75 and you say no, it’s $30. Then Matt says even $30 can be prohibitive and your response is basically “you’re wrong on everything you’ve said”. Not great. 

[Sean_A]

I am completely open to changing my opinion and understanding on the topic. I invite it, as it’s the only way we every learn anything. However, telling me that I’m wrong is wholly different from demonstrating that I am wrong. I, of course say all this, as respectfully as possible. I genuinely can benefit from the input.


I stand with the principle that having an inexpensive out-of-state e-club is unhelpful at courting someone outside of the established golf system. I stand by my views that while the USGA does fine work, it should be careful in weighing the second order consequences of adding barriers between those in the club system and those outside of it. I see no reason that PCC data shouldn’t be publicly accessible (if it isn’t already, which would void most of my argument).


I’m committed to have a full, good-faith discussion on these issues, even if it might bump this thread more than others are interested in. However, at this point it feels like I’m being taken down a peg (appropriately or not) rather than having a mutually beneficial discussion.

I looked up Golf Association of Michigan. $41 to join which includes a handicapping service (NY is $20 I am told). I suggest you take a look at the site. I remember it being a good organization which offered some good golf benefits. Still seems to be the case.

You can't honestly expect something for nothing then claim non inclusion for a $41 service.

You can always try to form your own golf club which is recognised by the local USGA partner. At least one guy on this board has done so very successfully. It takes work, but things are then run as you wish.

Ciao

[Bryan Izatt]

Three years ago, when the WHS and peripherally the PCC came about, I wrote to the USGA and asked how the PCC was calculated.  It was just curiosity on my part.  My question was as follows

"I understand the PCC calculation as laid out in the handicapping rules section 5.6.  The rule has been applied twice recently on my scores - once up by a stroke and once down by a stroke - and i understand how the calculation was done.

What I am curious about is how the expected score and expected standard deviation are calculated.  I can't find any explanation of how they are arrived at.  I also can't find any information on what the tolerances are that would cause a PCC adjustment.  I understand that the calculations are built in to the WHS system but I'd like to have some understanding of what the calculations are that are in the computer system."

Thanks for any clarification that you can provide."


Their response was as follows:

"Thank you for contacting us. The new Playing Conditions Calculation formula is not being shared to reduce unauthorized use of the WHS and Rules of Handicapping by those who are not authorized. The PCC is based on scoring data - not actual weather conditions.  If the scores posted on a given day are significantly higher or lower than the projected scores for the golfers that played that day, a very conservative adjustment is applied to the score differential."[/size][/font]


Clearly there was a cost in developing the GHIN system and the PCC as part of that.  There is the on-going cost of running the system and updating scoring and handicaps every day.  The USGA recoups those costs by charging a fee for use of the system.  Apparently different golf associations also add to the price of the index to cover their costs or to raise money for other endeavours.  It looks like The NCGA is on the expensive end of the scale.  I joined the FSGA last winter so that I could play in the gated golf community'd weekly men's league.  The cost was around $40.  That's very similar to what I pay in Canada at my club here.  I could also be a "Public" player here in Canada and not belong to a club for $60 CDN.

What I would gather from the USGA response is that they want to protect their intellectual property (for the PCC calculation) and not give it away to third parties who might in turn charge a fee or give it away for free.  They potentially could lose a lot of income if players could get a legitimate index without paying for it.

Eric,  I don't think the number of players posting scores on any given day has any impact on the PCC.  The calculation comes down to the delta between the projected scores and the actual scores that were posted for whatever number of players played that day and posted before midnight.  If the delta exceeds some number of standard deviations then an adjustment is made.

Matt,

As a purely practical matter, how would you propose to make the data available every day to third parties so that they can run their own system to calculate their members' handicaps.  Would you download the raw scores of all the players that played at the same course as their member played and let the third party use their own system to calculate the PCC, differential and handicap index that day.  Or would you have the USGA GHIN system do all the calculations and then give it gratis to the third party?

If you're going to have a system for handicapping that can be used across many venues and players then it only makes sense to have one system.  I guess that's a monopoly.  There were capital costs in designing and building it and there are ongoing operational costs every day.  Somebody has to pay for that.  And, that would be for those who want to have an recognized official handicap for whatever reasons they want to have one.  Many, many people play golf and have no need or desire to have a handicap index.
   

[Stewart Abramson]

Bryan, Good post. IIRC, I paid $30 to FSGA last year for my GHIN account. (and It's free for juniors.)  Whether $30 or $40, I don't think it would prevent anyone who really wants  an official index from getting one.


AG - You are right about the level of complaining. Especially about picayune stuff

[Kalen Braley]

The disconnect I'm having is, if you play enough golf to be interested in an actual handicap, even if you only play 20 rounds per year:

Between green fees, balls, occasional new club, shirt, or hat, range balls, a few beers at the clubhouse, petrol for the car, etc,...you're already well into the hundreds of dollars per year if not 4 figures, even if you only play inexpensive munis.

So if $40 to get a cap is gonna "break" you, then golf may just not be for you.

[Enno Gerdes]

We have an interesting situation with regards to the PCC at my home club at the moment. The course underwent renovation for about two years. In May, the renovated course (with many new/changed holes) was measured/rated. At that point, there was virtually no rough. Therefore, the course rating turned out to be "easier" than it would otherwise have been. Now everybody has to play to a lower course handicap. However, by now the rough is up to its normal height. In competition, the average score is much worse than you'd expect. The PCC-algorithm gives us a +3 adjustment in most competitions.


So I guess this is where the PCC works just as it should (needless to say, the course will be re-measured/-rated next year).

[Matt Schoolfield]

"Thank you for contacting us. The new Playing Conditions Calculation formula is not being shared to reduce unauthorized use of the WHS and Rules of Handicapping by those who are not authorized."

This is exactly what I was expecting when I said I suspected this was about lock-in earlier.

So if $40 to get a cap is gonna "break" you, then golf may just not be for you.

So, the $40 isn't the only barrier, though. There is a significant barrier to player acquisition when it comes to getting people in the (club) door. For my purposes, I'm going to talk about Scrabble, as I think they've done a fairly good job with regards to their status as a governing body with the acquisition to new scrabble players.

So, imagine we want to play scrabble. We can choose any dictionary we want, but deciding on which dictionary can be a point of conflict between players. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter (and I can't stress this enough to the folks who think I'm "complaining" about this... I think it really doesn't matter, but I still think it's worthwhile to think about). So, Scrabble players need a governing body, and the Official Scrabble Players Dictionary was born (there are more details here, but that's the general gist). Now, if we're trying to promote the game of Scrabble, imagine asking people to find a scrabble players club (at some expense, even if it's only a few dollars/month), and only after that do they get access to the dictionary. Yes, a bunch of folks who are freeloading (it's just a game people) would almost certainly sign up with a club, but we will never know how many folks will balk when they see that they need to join some club, and become a card-carrying scrabble player, just to play their friends at scrabble according to the rules. Here, club membership would be prerequisite just to play Scrabble, instead of leaving club membership reserved (as it should be) for scrabble fanatics, who become fanatics by playing scrabble, according to the official rules, with their fanatical friends.

People forget how much institutional knowledge is required to navigate these "but it's only $30s" clubs we're talking about. To illustrate this point, if anyone here every plays scrabble with their friends or kids, how many scrabble clubs are in your town? (That isn't a rhetorical question, there is almost certainly a scrabble club in your city.) Do you know how much they charge for membership? Do you know how you would even find that out? The answer for most people is an overwhelming "no" and that's exactly the position that non-golfers are in unless they are lucky enough to be related to golf-nerds like us. Most people who are trying to find out how to get a handicap are going to ask their local course/club, who have every incentive not to point them in the direction of the cheapest option. I'm pretty sure my club is $135 for new members, which is dirt cheap for my area of brick and mortar clubs, and they're not going to tell anyone to join a $30 e-club in Kansas, even if they knew one existed (they don't).

So, imagine if we were banned from using the Scrabble Dictionary unless we join a local scrabble club. It seems so dumb, to the point that think it would be counterproductive to the governing body. Thankfully, that's not what they do at all, in fact, they do the exact opposite, they give a bare-bones version of the word list away for free.

As a purely practical matter, how would you propose to make the data available every day to third parties so that they can run their own system to calculate their members' handicaps.  Would you download the raw scores of all the players that played at the same course as their member played and let the third party use their own system to calculate the PCC, differential and handicap index that day.  Or would you have the USGA GHIN system do all the calculations and then give it gratis to the third party?

I would proposed that the governing bodies do the exact same thing that Scrabble does. Provide non-members with an extremely stripped down version of the handicapping system. In scrabble, you can look up an exact word, and they will tell you whether it is playable, or not. They won't tell you much of anything about the word, and if you want to know about the word, too bad, buy a dictionary, support the system. That's how I think it ought to be with golf.

Provide no stats, no gps, no anything except an explicitly unofficial handicap. It should be intentionally clunky and ugly. The non-members are not included in any PCC calculations, so the handicap is technically not official in a very real sense, but it will be close enough, and be designed for non-member play. If you really wanted to be hostile to the non-member (which I would not support), you could even force the non-member to upload their data on a desktop. That's what I would do, it's just a stupid math problem, and you can force the data storage in a cookie stored on the users side. The other way is just to publish a PCC database, so third parties could manually make adjustments.

At the same time, the USGA would receive a mountain of valuable data at effectively no cost. We could know what the actual average handicap is (suspected to be around 25, AFAIK), instead of the average active-member handicap (around 15). It would be an extremely effective way to advertise local clubs, products, and establish what demographics are playing what courses (this data could be sold or just given to those courses).

I fully agree that there are costs associated with creating the GHIN system. I just see it as short-run effective for growing the USGA's membership, but long-run detrimental to the game. The entire point of this is that only a few years ago, a handicap was just a math problem you could do at home. Now it's tightly guarded secret by an organization that's meant to represent us.

At the end of the day, the USGA has created a de facto barrier to the game that just didn't exist a couple years ago. I actually like the PCC adjustment in principal, but I see the way it's being used as unnecessarily extractive, and a similar system could be used to eliminate the costs associated with creating ratings/slope for courses... instead of adding to those existing costs. A governing body can use it's position of authority by solving coordination problems and creating economies of scale. Or it can require membership for participation. I see no legitimate reason for the governing body to intentionally flex it's authority in this way. We should be courting new club members by showing them how much fun being in a golf club is (we could have clubs host unofficial vs official net tournaments, say, once per year). We shouldn't court them by calling them freeloaders and taking our ball and going home. It seems like something only an MBA would come up with. Again, it's not something I'm going to fall on my sword over, but it's something I disagree with in principle.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I am completely open to changing my opinion and understanding on the topic.

Making incorrect statements about how PCC works doesn't demonstrate an openness to learning or understanding.

However, telling me that I’m wrong is wholly different from demonstrating that I am wrong.

I've shared a few things about how you're wrong about some of the things you've said, and pointing out specifically what things you've gotten wrong is helpful info as well. If I say something and someone says "you're wrong, and here's a clue as to why" I can either follow up on that or not; I don't re-state how open I am to learning and then ask that person to do all of the work of educating me.

If golfers average +1 from what's expected, the PCC will not be +1 as you suggested. That's one of the ways you're wrong. That's not how PCC works.

I stand by my views that while the USGA does fine work, it should be careful in weighing the second order consequences of adding barriers between those in the club system and those outside of it.

It's not even clear what you mean by "club system" here when you say things like that. And, the bulk of what I've said is not about this, which you seem to now be focusing on. The topic here isn't whether you need a GHIN membership, but about PCCs. I'm not really interested in discussing the "club system." The topic is the PCC, not the cost of a GHIN account.

I see no reason that PCC data shouldn’t be publicly accessible (if it isn’t already, which would void most of my argument).

There's a difference between PCC data (i.e. was a PCC applied) and exposing the algorithm or something. If you want a handicap, pay for a handicap, and then you can see the PCCs applied to various players (or yourself).

Pretty poor on the tone here Erik.

Charlie, I can't possibly know what tone you've "read into" the plain text I've typed. Statements like "you are wrong about that" have no "tone" to me - they're simply statements of fact.

your response is basically “you’re wrong on everything you’ve said”. Not great.

He's wrong about the things where he's factually wrong. I don't say "you're wrong" about matters of opinion.

Their response was as follows:"Thank you for contacting us. The new Playing Conditions Calculation formula is not being shared to reduce unauthorized use of the WHS and Rules of Handicapping by those who are not authorized. The PCC is based on scoring data - not actual weather conditions.  If the scores posted on a given day are significantly higher or lower than the projected scores for the golfers that played that day, a very conservative adjustment is applied to the score differential."

Correct. It's very conservative, not the "everyone averages +1 so a +1 PCC is applied" as Matt has suggested.

Eric,  I don't think the number of players posting scores on any given day has any impact on the PCC.

It does, yeah. If one golfer plays the course and shoots +30 over expected, there's not going to be a PCC. If 150 golfers all post scores, the system has more data and is more likely to apply a PCC as warranted. More golfers = more data, and the system is more "comfortable" applying a (still conservative) PCC adjustment. Fewer golfers, less data, and wider deltas over what's expected are required.

We have an interesting situation with regards to the PCC at my home club at the moment. The course underwent renovation for about two years. In May, the renovated course (with many new/changed holes) was measured/rated. At that point, there was virtually no rough. Therefore, the course rating turned out to be "easier" than it would otherwise have been. Now everybody has to play to a lower course handicap. However, by now the rough is up to its normal height. In competition, the average score is much worse than you'd expect. The PCC-algorithm gives us a +3 adjustment in most competitions.

The course should be rated under "normal playing conditions." If that's with the thicker rough, they should possibly consider re-rating the course (or just adjusting the rough height in the course rating spreadsheet/calculation). It's not likely that changing the rough height will result in the change I suspect you think it may, though. The distance, green targets, penalties/hazards, etc. are the biggies (with distance the biggest biggie by a lot).

I would proposed that the governing bodies do the exact same thing that Scrabble does. Provide non-members with an extremely stripped down version of the handicapping system.

I'm still not interested in this part of the conversation as it's off topic, but they can do that: the formula is really easy, and I know plenty of people who keep spreadsheets of their index. Some keep track of all rounds, including solo rounds. And the PCC is almost irrelevant because, again, almost every time a PCC is accounted, it's not one of the 8 best of the last 20 scores. Removing PCC but keeping everything else is not even all that "stripped down." It's an easy formula.

Provide no stats, no gps, no anything except an explicitly unofficial handicap.

Just keep your own in a spreadsheet. It's unofficial, doesn't have GPS, etc.

At the same time, the USGA would receive a mountain of valuable data at effectively no cost.

Running the service for all these golfers you think will sign up for an post their free handicaps would cost money.

[Bryan Izatt]

We have an interesting situation with regards to the PCC at my home club at the moment. The course underwent renovation for about two years. In May, the renovated course (with many new/changed holes) was measured/rated. At that point, there was virtually no rough. Therefore, the course rating turned out to be "easier" than it would otherwise have been. Now everybody has to play to a lower course handicap. However, by now the rough is up to its normal height. In competition, the average score is much worse than you'd expect. The PCC-algorithm gives us a +3 adjustment in most competitions.So I guess this is where the PCC works just as it should (needless to say, the course will be re-measured/-rated next year).[/size]

Enno,


When you say that the course rating turned out to be "easier" in May, do you mean that the course rating was lower after the reno than it was before the reno?  If so, what was the rating and slope before and after the reno?

Or, did you mean it was "easier" than it should have been because they didn't rate in the normal rough. 

In the course rating process "rough" is one of ten obstacles that are rated.  The total of the contribution of the 10 obstacles to the course rating is less than 20%.  So, even if the course was rated as a zero out of ten for rough when there was no rough and it were to be rerated to include a 10 out of 10 for lush unrecoverable rough, the course rating would likely only rise 0.2 or 0.3.


I haven't seen any +3 PCC's in 3 years.  It suggests that the scores in the competitions are substantially higher than expected - like 5 or more strokes higher.  Are there common +3 PCC's during normal casual play? If the +3 PCC occurs mostly for competitions, that most likely has more to do with the fact they are competitions creating pressure on the players and probably course setup as well.  It seems entirely unlikely that it is related to solely to the rough.

If the rating and the slope are different now than they were before the reno, then your handicap indexes should adjust to the new norm over the period of 20 rounds.

[Bryan Izatt]

"Thank you for contacting us. The new Playing Conditions Calculation formula is not being shared to reduce unauthorized use of the WHS and Rules of Handicapping by those who are not authorized."

This is exactly what I was expecting when I said I suspected this was about lock-in earlier.


Lock-in has a very negative connotation.  To me it's more about protecting their intellectual property.

So if $40 to get a cap is gonna "break" you, then golf may just not be for you.

So, the $40 isn't the only barrier, though. There is a significant barrier to player acquisition when it comes to getting people in the (club) door. For my purposes, I'm going to talk about Scrabble, as I think they've done a fairly good job with regards to their status as a governing body with the acquisition to new scrabble players.


I don't think the Scrabble analogy makes it any easier to understand your point. 

So, imagine we want to play scrabble. We can choose any dictionary we want, but deciding on which dictionary can be a point of conflict between players. Ultimately, it really doesn't matter (and I can't stress this enough to the folks who think I'm "complaining" about this... I think it really doesn't matter, but I still think it's worthwhile to think about). So, Scrabble players need a governing body, and the Official Scrabble Players Dictionary was born (there are more details here, but that's the general gist). Now, if we're trying to promote the game of Scrabble, imagine asking people to find a scrabble players club (at some expense, even if it's only a few dollars/month), and only after that do they get access to the dictionary. Yes, a bunch of folks who are freeloading (it's just a game people) would almost certainly sign up with a club, but we will never know how many folks will balk when they see that they need to join some club, and become a card-carrying scrabble player, just to play their friends at scrabble according to the rules. Here, club membership would be prerequisite just to play Scrabble, instead of leaving club membership reserved (as it should be) for scrabble fanatics, who become fanatics by playing scrabble, according to the official rules, with their fanatical friends.

People forget how much institutional knowledge is required to navigate these "but it's only $30s" clubs we're talking about. To illustrate this point, if anyone here every plays scrabble with their friends or kids, how many scrabble clubs are in your town? (That isn't a rhetorical question, there is almost certainly a scrabble club in your city.) Do you know how much they charge for membership? Do you know how you would even find that out? The answer for most people is an overwhelming "no" and that's exactly the position that non-golfers are in unless they are lucky enough to be related to golf-nerds like us. Most people who are trying to find out how to get a handicap are going to ask their local course/club, who have every incentive not to point them in the direction of the cheapest option. I'm pretty sure my club is $135 for new members, which is dirt cheap for my area of brick and mortar clubs, and they're not going to tell anyone to join a $30 e-club in Kansas, even if they knew one existed (they don't).


In the 21st century I'd imagine that anyone who is captivated enough by golf to want to have a handicap would probably resort to Googling it.  I looked and the NCGA has at least 6 e-clubs on their web site.  By the way the SCGA e-clubs are cheaper.

So, imagine if we were banned from using the Scrabble Dictionary unless we join a local scrabble club. It seems so dumb, to the point that think it would be counterproductive to the governing body. Thankfully, that's not what they do at all, in fact, they do the exact opposite, they give a bare-bones version of the word list away for free.


There are many "bare bones" handicap calculators available for free on the internet.  Google it.  They don't have PCC but that's a very small point for somebody who wants a handicap to play friendlies with other like-minded players.   

As a purely practical matter, how would you propose to make the data available every day to third parties so that they can run their own system to calculate their members' handicaps.  Would you download the raw scores of all the players that played at the same course as their member played and let the third party use their own system to calculate the PCC, differential and handicap index that day.  Or would you have the USGA GHIN system do all the calculations and then give it gratis to the third party?

I would proposed that the governing bodies do the exact same thing that Scrabble does. Provide non-members with an extremely stripped down version of the handicapping system. In scrabble, you can look up an exact word, and they will tell you whether it is playable, or not. They won't tell you much of anything about the word, and if you want to know about the word, too bad, buy a dictionary, support the system. That's how I think it ought to be with golf.


Again, there are many free handicap systems available on-line.

Provide no stats, no gps, no anything except an explicitly unofficial handicap. I use Swing U because it's free and has GPS and some club related distance stats.  I also have an official handicap here and in Florida for my club men's leagues. It should be intentionally clunky and ugly. The non-members are not included in any PCC calculations, so the handicap is technically not official in a very real sense, but it will be close enough, and be designed for non-member play. If you really wanted to be hostile to the non-member (which I would not support), you could even force the non-member to upload their data on a desktop. That's what I would do, it's just a stupid math problem, and you can force the data storage in a cookie stored on the users side. The other way is just to publish a PCC database, so third parties could manually make adjustments.


I think you misunderstand the PCC.  There is no PCC database.  Every day the GHIN system calculates a differential for every player who posted that day to update their handicap.  Peripherally it calculates the standard deviation of the difference between the posted score and the expected score for every player that posted and figures out if it needs to adjust those players' differentials because it was a much harder or easier day than expected. I suppose if you wanted to go crazy you could ask GHIN to send out a notice to all third party handicappers the PCC for every course so that the third party could incorporate it into their algorithm.  But, I can't see any reason why the USGA or any other association would want to do that.

At the same time, the USGA would receive a mountain of valuable data at effectively no cost. We could know what the actual average handicap is (suspected to be around 25, AFAIK), instead of the average active-member handicap (around 15). It would be an extremely effective way to advertise local clubs, products, and establish what demographics are playing what courses (this data could be sold or just given to those courses).

I fully agree that there are costs associated with creating the GHIN system. I just see it as short-run effective for growing the USGA's membership, but long-run detrimental to the game. The entire point of this is that only a few years ago, a handicap was just a math problem you could do at home. Now it's tightly guarded secret by an organization that's meant to represent us.


The handicap system is an open book - and yes it's just a mathematical algorithm - except for the PCC.  And, in the broad scheme of things the PCC adjustment is relatively rare and has relatively little impact on a handicap index. 

At the end of the day, the USGA has created a de facto barrier to the game that just didn't exist a couple years ago.  This is hyperbole.  The PCC is no barrier to taking up the game or playing it.  All the handicap system, including the PCC does is prevent people from playing in competitions where the organizers want players to have accredited official handicaps. I actually like the PCC adjustment in principal, but I see the way it's being used as unnecessarily extractive, and a similar system could be used [/size][size=78%]to eliminate the costs [/size][size=78%]associated with creating ratings/slope for courses... instead of adding to those existing costs. A governing body can use it's position of authority by solving coordination problems and creating economies of scale. Or it can require membership for participation. I see no legitimate reason for the governing body to intentionally flex it's authority in this way. We should be courting new club members by showing them how much fun being in a golf club is (we could have clubs host unofficial vs official net tournaments, say, once per year). We shouldn't court them by calling them freeloaders and taking our ball and going home. It seems like something only an MBA would come up with. Again, it's not something I'm going to fall on my sword over, but it's something I disagree with in principle.

[Bryan Izatt]

...................

Eric,  I don't think the number of players posting scores on any given day has any impact on the PCC.

It does, yeah. If one golfer plays the course and shoots +30 over expected, there's not going to be a PCC. If 150 golfers all post scores, the system has more data and is more likely to apply a PCC as warranted. More golfers = more data, and the system is more "comfortable" applying a (still conservative) PCC adjustment. Fewer golfers, less data, and wider deltas over what's expected are required.


.............................

As I'm sure you know there has to be a minimum of 8 scores posted.  One score doesn't cut it.  I don't know why you think the system is more "comfortable" with more data.  Systems are programmed to execute algorithms.  There is no comfort involved (At least until we get to sentient AI ).  Have you actually seen the PCC algorithm?  I'm not persuaded by more golfers= more data = a more "comfortable" system. 

[Enno Gerdes]

We have an interesting situation with regards to the PCC at my home club at the moment. The course underwent renovation for about two years. In May, the renovated course (with many new/changed holes) was measured/rated. At that point, there was virtually no rough. Therefore, the course rating turned out to be "easier" than it would otherwise have been. Now everybody has to play to a lower course handicap. However, by now the rough is up to its normal height. In competition, the average score is much worse than you'd expect. The PCC-algorithm gives us a +3 adjustment in most competitions.So I guess this is where the PCC works just as it should (needless to say, the course will be re-measured/-rated next year).

Enno,


When you say that the course rating turned out to be "easier" in May, do you mean that the course rating was lower after the reno than it was before the reno?  If so, what was the rating and slope before and after the reno?

Or, did you mean it was "easier" than it should have been because they didn't rate in the normal rough. 

In the course rating process "rough" is one of ten obstacles that are rated.  The total of the contribution of the 10 obstacles to the course rating is less than 20%.  So, even if the course was rated as a zero out of ten for rough when there was no rough and it were to be rerated to include a 10 out of 10 for lush unrecoverable rough, the course rating would likely only rise 0.2 or 0.3.


I haven't seen any +3 PCC's in 3 years.  It suggests that the scores in the competitions are substantially higher than expected - like 5 or more strokes higher.  Are there common +3 PCC's during normal casual play? If the +3 PCC occurs mostly for competitions, that most likely has more to do with the fact they are competitions creating pressure on the players and probably course setup as well.  It seems entirely unlikely that it is related to solely to the rough.

If the rating and the slope are different now than they were before the reno, then your handicap indexes should adjust to the new norm over the period of 20 rounds.

Bryan,


I think there are multiple issues here, it's obviously more complex than "there was no rough, now there is rough". Back in May, the mowing lines weren't even defined yet, so "normal playing conditions" were hard to interpret; there were still some temporary tee boxes, etc. The course was simply rated too early, but that was due to pressure from membership (plenty of back-story here, but that's for a different thread...).


I don't know how the PCC works out in non-comp play. To be perfectly honest, the tradition over here (Netherlands) is that you enter competition rounds into the system for handicap calculation, but not necessarily casual rounds.


Final point, the PCC is not a new concept as far as I know. Pre-WHS, the competition committee was at liberty to make a manual adjustment to the field's scores. That was only done in very bad weather circumstances; I assume that's where the misunderstanding "PCC = weather adjustment" comes from. With the PCC, the adjustment is taken out of the hands of the committee and made more objective - but less transparent. So in general, I quite fine with the PCC algorithm being introduced.


 

[Wayne_Kozun]

I just returned from a few days at Cabot Links and played in very strong winds for three days.  I entered my scores which, were well above my handicap (diffs of 9.6-18.4 for a 8.3 handicap) and there was no PCC applied on any of the days.  On some days it was at least a three club wind.  I guess Golf Canada didn't have enough scores entered to make an adjustment.


So thanks to the lack of PCC I look forward to my handicap going up a bit in the near future!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()