OT-PCC Handicap adjustment/re-rating

[Jim Hoak]

You guys need to all get a life!  With everything going on in the world--and our own "f'd" up political situation here at home--is this really the most important thing you have to focus on?
The USGA made a good effort to produce an improved handicap system.  Is it perfect?  Maybe not.  But who really cares?
Live with it--or set up you own system for you and your friends--or go play tennis!

[Pete Lavallee]

Just to add what I have experienced: we just had a -1 PCC at Coronado GC on the second day of our weekend Eclectic Tournament; not surprising since most players just picked up after not beating their first day score. This is the only negative PCC on my page. We also had a +1 PCC at Admiral Baker South where we played both courses in the Club Championship; again the only plus PCC on my page. We played Torrey Pines South on Tuesday and played a tee box back on 5 holes, no PCC? It certainly played much harder than usual, we had 8 players so we did cross the threshold for a PCC to be applied.

[Chris Hughes]

That's the USGA M.O..

I have an ongoing dialogue with them about the soft/hard-cap "anti-abuse" system which is completely bogus, yet they insist on defending the indefensible .  To their credit, they always respond, but the responses get increasingly terse and whomever the staffer is on the other side no longer signs by name...

They're getting to be as annoyed by you as others have gotten. It's not indefensible — just because you don't like it doesn't make it indefensible.


None other than the inimitable Dean Knuth, otherwise known as The Pope of Slope**, 100% agrees with me -- are you suggesting you are more knowledgeable than The Pope?

How many folks are in your "eClub"?

Why do you ask?


Why won't you answer?


Most of what I've said about PCCs is either general knowledge or comes from my entire AGA, not just my club (which has hundreds of members). Do you, like Rob, have a hard time understanding how a small sample size leads to sensationalistic comments like "1000% increase in PCCs!!!"?

**For those who might not be aware, Dean Knuth was the United States Golf Association's Senior Director of Handicapping, GHIN and Green Section Administration from 1981 until June of 1997.

[Chris Hughes]

You guys need to all get a life! [Go pound sand.] 

With everything going on in the world--and our own "f'd" up political situation here at home--is this really the most important thing you have to focus on? [No, but the debate sure is fun!]

The USGA made a good effort to produce an improved handicap system. [Entirely debatable.] Is it perfect?  [Not even close.]  Maybe not.  [Definitely not.] But who really cares? [I do.]

Live with it--or set up you own system for you and your friends--or go play tennis! [If you want to be a lemming, feel free...  I like tennis, just started playing again, have a sweet new Babolat racquet!]

[Rob Marshall]

I’m not sensationalizing anything.

Yes, you are by the very nature of going on and on about "8X" or "10X."

"WE ARE SEEING A 10X INCREASE IN PCCs!!!!"

That reads a bit differently than "we have 18 more PCCs than last year, a year in which we only saw a weirdly low number of 2."

It's a sample size thing. A small numbers thing. Maybe last year was the outlier, in that YOU only saw two. If you had seen even FIVE last year, you'd be down to a 4x increase. Which is still high, but 5 is still a bit low for last year.

And again, just think… As I've said several times now… you were only two fewer PCCs away from being able to scream about how you were seeing an INFINITELY LARGE INCREASE in PCCs! 

Stop talking about it as a percentage increase or something. You're seeing an increase that's a little larger than the rest of the country. Or use more than just your PCCs — I highly doubt that for your whole club you're seeing even a 10x increase, and even on the small chance that you are… it's not being seen across GHIN.

You say this isn’t being seen across the country.

It's not being seen across the country. That's a fact.

Simple question that the governing body can’t or won’t answer. They are saying this is not out of the ordinary which is contrary to what you are stating and what others here have said.

Because they have more than two data points the year before and more than 20 this year. And they don't owe you an explanation. You're just a golfer.

Erik, the USGA is telling me what we (my club) are seeing is the norm in our area. I never said it was happening anywhere other than my club. That's why I am trying to get an answer as to why. I've said that at my club we have had 10X the number that we had last year. Jack won 9x as many majors as Norman. That is a fact. Never did I say there was a 10X factor anywhere other than my club. 2 to 20 is 10X. If you disagree fine. But that doesn't mean it's not 10x. I'm sorry if that some how offends you. But the fact is it's true and the fact is the USGA and our Allied is saying that other clubs in our area are seeing the same. I don't know what else to tell you.

[Chris Hughes]

Last year thru 8/16 we had two. This year we are at twenty. 10X. Simple math. They had a slight change to the system and we have made no changes that would make the course easier. Playing conditions have been the same as last year.

And again, if you had 1 last year, it would be 20x. You're talking about a small sample size and making sensationalistic comments about it. There's been an increase, as the formula was more conservative at first (the first four years of the WHS). It's slightly less conservative now, but not anywhere near 8x or 10x or 20x across the U.S.

Stop with the 10x stuff. It's sensationalistic bullshit that's not being seen across the U.S. and belies a really poor understanding of data set sizes.

I’m not sensationalizing anything. We’ve gone from 2 to 20. With no changes to the course. You say this isn’t being seen across the country. So why is my club seeing it? Simple question that the governing body can’t or won’t answer. They are saying this is not out of the ordinary which is contrary to what you are stating and what others here have said.

Don't let the USGA surrogates push you off here -- you are onto something, press on mate!

[Rob Marshall]

You guys need to all get a life!  With everything going on in the world--and our own "f'd" up political situation here at home--is this really the most important thing you have to focus on?
The USGA made a good effort to produce an improved handicap system.  Is it perfect?  Maybe not.  But who really cares?
Live with it--or set up you own system for you and your friends--or go play tennis!

Jim,
All I'm trying to understand is why my club has seen such a large increase. I think its a reasonable question to ask. Why I can't get a straight answer is beyond me. I'm being told what we are seeing is the norm in my area but from what I'm being told here that's not true. Erik is in Erie, I'm in Rochester. 2 hours apart and he's not seeing the same adjustments.

[Rob Marshall]

For those interested and to wrap this up:


I received an email from Derek at the USGA with a history of our PCC's from 2020 to 2024. Instead of sending a reply I called him. The tweak to the formula should cause courses to have about a 5% increase in PCC's. That's what they are seeing across the globe. They consider something off if there are PCC's that exceed 10% of the playable days. Starting 4/15 thru 8/19 if all days were playable we would be at 126. That means if  over 13 PCC's then some investigating needs to be done. We are at 19. We would be considered some sort of outlier. Doesn't provide us an explanation as to why we are seeing the increase but he agrees that something odd is going on. He is going to contact our local association.


Also in case anyone was wondering. The PCC goes across the board as far as tees go. If the majority of play is from the member tees and it results in an adjustment that adjustment effects the back tees as well as all forward tees.

[Jim_Coleman]

    I wonder if this is something that is routinely looked at by the powers that be, or if it is the club’s responsibility to call it to their attention. As I’ve written earlier here, whenever I’ve looked at my GHIN statistics, between 6 and 8 out of every 20 scores has a -1 PCC. I have never seen a +1.
   We are clearly overrated. Whether our restoration, which has removed trees, removed bunkers, widened fairways, and leveled some greens, has contributed to this phenomenon should also be assessed.

[Rob Marshall]

    I wonder if this is something that is routinely looked at by the powers that be, or if it is the club’s responsibility to call it to their attention. As I’ve written earlier here, whenever I’ve looked at my GHIN statistics, between 6 and 8 out of every 20 scores has a -1 PCC. I have never seen a +1.
   We are clearly overrated. Whether our restoration, which has removed trees, removed bunkers, widened fairways, and leveled some greens, has contributed to this phenomenon should also be assessed.

From 2020 to today we have never had a +PCC


I don't believe the USGA is looking a specific clubs in detail. I think that leave that to the Allied Associations.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

None other than the inimitable Dean Knuth, otherwise known as The Pope of Slope**, 100% agrees with me -- are you suggesting you are more knowledgeable than The Pope?

It's not a matter of fact, it's a matter of opinion. It's not about knowledge; I think it's prudent to cap semi-rapid upward movement.

Why won't you answer?

You still haven't answered the questions I asked you a long time ago. Also, if you could read, I did answer:

"Most of what I've said about PCCs is either general knowledge or comes from my entire AGA, not just my club (which has hundreds of members). Do you, like Rob, have a hard time understanding how a small sample size leads to sensationalistic comments like "1000% increase in PCCs!!!"?"

In other words, I'm using the data of thousands of golfers and hundreds of clubs.

I've said that at my club we have had 10X the number that we had last year. Never did I say there was a 10X factor anywhere other than my club. 2 to 20 is 10X.

Oy. I've never said the math is wrong.

If you disagree fine.

I don't "disagree" with math. I think it's sensationalist to do a multiplier of a number as small as two. As I've said, change the 2 to a 1 and you'd have a 20X increase! Because it's a small number.

If you have a dollar and I give you another dollar, you've doubled your wealth… but you're still not rich. Heck, I can give you $100, and you've got LOT more as a percentage, but you're still not wealthy.

Doing it as a percentage or a multiplier when it's a small original number is sensationalistic. If you shoot twice the score you shot on a single hole (maybe you birdied a par three, then you make a bogey) that's not a huge change. If you shoot double the score over 18 holes, that's a HUGE difference.

The tweak to the formula should cause courses to have about a 5% increase in PCC's. That's what they are seeing across the globe.

Ding ding ding!!!

And, Rob, your own scores show a grand total of three PCCs since the introduction of the WHS years ago, right? Just think. You can add one more and see a 33% increase!

[Rob Marshall]

"And, Rob, your own scores show a grand total of three PCCs since the introduction of the WHS years ago, right? Just think. You can add one more and see a 33% increase!"


Wrong, 8 of my last 20 scores have a -1PCC. I did have a grand total of 1 in 2023.  I'm sorry, I don't know where you got your information, but it's not correct. I realize you are never wrong but in this case I think you made a mistake.

Bottom line is the USGA has acknowledged that something is off by a pretty good margin.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Wrong, 8 of my last 20 scores have a -1PCC. I did have a grand total of 1 in 2023.  I'm sorry, I don't know where you got your information, but it's not correct. I realize you are never wrong but in this case I think you made a mistake.

That's why I asked for confirmation, Rob. Because I wasn't sure in my quick look I'd found your GHIN. I have now.

You will note that if you look on GHIN for other members with your name, you won't find anything like what you're seeing in your own record. Your increase is not common across GHIN.

Since you're seeing an anomaly at your course, I'd suspect they are either playing the tees from the wrong places pretty often (I think you've said this is not the case) OR your course is in need of a re-rating or an investigation of some sort. That you've never seen a + PCC is also telling, as they're more common than negatives.

Bottom line is the USGA has acknowledged that something is off by a pretty good margin.

Bottom line is that all I've ever really said is that it's not happening across the world (or even the U.S.), and that you're sensationalizing it with your "10x" way of talking about it.

You're seeing an unusual increase at your course.

[Rob Marshall]

That's great but when you look up a golfer their GHIN doesn't show up. Not sure that it matters but why would you post that on a public board?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

That's great but when you look up a golfer their GHIN doesn't show up. Not sure that it matters but why you post that on a public board?

I'm not looking at your scoring record on GHIN.com.

[John Kavanaugh]

I apologize if this isn’t obvious, but does Erik have information about the algorithm not available to the general public?

[Rob Marshall]

"That you've never seen a + PCC is also telling, as they're more common than negatives."

Not really true:

To note as Trends within the below statistics, there does not seem to be a significant divide between negative (-1) vs. positive PCC occurrences; generally in the range of 60:40, 50:50, or the like…however, you’ll also notice that Negative PCC’s tend to be slightly more prevalent (majority) for Northern/Seasonal territories; whereas Southern/Year-Round typically in reverse with the Positive PCC’s slightly outweighing Negative. 

Western PA 67.1% Neg
PA 63.4 Neg
Rochester 58.2 Neg
Mich 55.4% Neg
NYSGA 65.6% Neg
AZ 35.5% Neg
Fl 46.6% Neg
So Cal 47.11% Neg
Texas 53.2% Neg
Mexico 36.9% Neg

[Rob Marshall]

I don't know John, He probably wrote it.

[Chris Hughes]

None other than the inimitable Dean Knuth, otherwise known as The Pope of Slope**, 100% agrees with me -- are you suggesting you are more knowledgeable than The Pope?

It's not a matter of fact, it's a matter of opinion. It's not about knowledge; I think it's prudent to cap semi-rapid upward movement.


[Absolute nonsense.  There was no problem with "semi-rapid upward movement" that needed to be stamped out.]

Why won't you answer?

You still haven't answered the questions I asked you a long time ago. Also, if you could read, I did answer:


[Sure I did, and no you didn't.  How many "members" are there in that "eClub" you administer to?]

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It's not a matter of fact, it's a matter of opinion. It's not about knowledge; I think it's prudent to cap semi-rapid upward movement.

[Absolute nonsense.  There was no problem with "semi-rapid upward movement" that needed to be stamped out.]

You need a better dictionary. That's an opinion, pal.

You've yet to have an intellectually honest conversation.

[Chris Hughes]

It's not a matter of fact, it's a matter of opinion. It's not about knowledge; I think it's prudent to cap semi-rapid upward movement.

[Absolute nonsense.  There was no problem with "semi-rapid upward movement" that needed to be stamped out.]

You need a better dictionary. That's an opinion, pal.

You've yet to have an intellectually honest conversation.

Why do you feel it is "prudent to cap semi-rapid upward movement"?

Have you had handicap abuse problems of this nature in your eClub?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

[Absolute nonsense.  There was no problem with "semi-rapid upward movement" that needed to be stamped out.]

Again, that is your opinion. People with access to a lot more info than you or I (at the USGA and in conjunction with the WHS) disagree.

I'm starting to think you're a wannabe sandbagger. Gotta get the cap up for member-guest season or something.

[Chris Hughes]

[Absolute nonsense.  There was no problem with "semi-rapid upward movement" that needed to be stamped out.]

Again, that is your opinion. People with access to a lot more info than you or I (at the USGA and in conjunction with the WHS) disagree.

I'm starting to think you're a wannabe sandbagger. Gotta get the cap up for member-guest season or something.

Quote from: Erik J. Barzeski on August 20, 2024, 10:42:00 PM

It's not a matter of fact, it's a matter of opinion. It's not about knowledge; I think it's prudent to cap semi-rapid upward movement.

-----------------------
Why do you feel it is "prudent to cap semi-rapid upward movement"?

Have you had handicap abuse problems of this nature in your eClub?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Why do you feel it is "prudent to cap semi-rapid upward movement"?

Why do you feel it's not, Bagger Hughes?

Also, my opinion on why matters as much as yours: you should be asking the people with the data who saw fit to do it.

[Chris Hughes]

Why do you feel it is "prudent to cap semi-rapid upward movement"?

Why do you feel it's not, Bagger Hughes?

Also, my opinion on why matters as much as yours: you should be asking the people with the data who saw fit to do it.

Again, do you have a problem with "semi-rapid upward movement" of handicaps in the eClub you administer to?