OT-PCC Handicap adjustment/re-rating

[archie_struthers]

 




WE play at a golf course where the wind can blow over 30 mph  on a lot of days in the spring and late fall yet have never seen this implemented for high scores ...so once again the handicap system leaves me less than impressed

[Rob Marshall]

Rob: Not yet.

Cindy from the USGA referred be to our Allied Association. They girl I spoke with at our Allied Association told me the USGA has tightened there parameters to generate more -1 PCC adjustments. Basically she said that all clubs should be seeing more - PCC adjustments due to the change in parameters.


What it means to me is that they are making everyone's handicap higher by using the PCC adjustments instead of re-rating the courses.

[A.G._Crockett]

Rob: Not yet.

Cindy from the USGA referred be to our Allied Association. They girl I spoke with at our Allied Association told me the USGA has tightened there parameters to generate more -1 PCC adjustments. Basically she said that all clubs should be seeing more - PCC adjustments due to the change in parameters.


What it means to me is that they are making everyone's handicap higher by using the PCC adjustments instead of re-rating the courses.

I think I’d choose to look at it a bit differently, perhaps. 


Given the rating of a particular course, there will ALWAYS be days where there are “unusual” variations in the posted scores.  A PCC adjustment accounts for that without needing to rerate the course, which will be done in due time anyway.


And even if a course were to be rerated yearly, you’d still face the same problem of days where the posted scores were outside some standard deviation, whether higher or lower. 


As to the impact of PCCs on indexes, I think it’s safe to say that it’s pretty minimal.  Even assuming that the score is one of the 8 that counts, you’re talking about less than a couple of tenths of a stroke, right?  And the +/- PCCs might sort of cancel each other out anyway?


I’ve posted 92 scores so far in 2024. (Yes, I play a LOT of golf!). I have 12 PCC adjustments so far; 5 have been -1, 5 have been +1, and two have been +0.5. That’s about as close to a wash as you can get.

[Rob Marshall]

Rob: Not yet.

Cindy from the USGA referred be to our Allied Association. They girl I spoke with at our Allied Association told me the USGA has tightened there parameters to generate more -1 PCC adjustments. Basically she said that all clubs should be seeing more - PCC adjustments due to the change in parameters.


What it means to me is that they are making everyone's handicap higher by using the PCC adjustments instead of re-rating the courses.

I think I’d choose to look at it a bit differently, perhaps. 


Given the rating of a particular course, there will ALWAYS be days where there are “unusual” variations in the posted scores.  A PCC adjustment accounts for that without needing to rerate the course, which will be done in due time anyway.


And even if a course were to be rerated yearly, you’d still face the same problem of days where the posted scores were outside some standard deviation, whether higher or lower. 


As to the impact of PCCs on indexes, I think it’s safe to say that it’s pretty minimal.  Even assuming that the score is one of the 8 that counts, you’re talking about less than a couple of tenths of a stroke, right?  And the +/- PCCs might sort of cancel each other out anyway?


I’ve posted 92 scores so far in 2024. (Yes, I play a LOT of golf!). I have 12 PCC adjustments so far; 5 have been -1, 5 have been +1, and two have been +0.5. That’s about as close to a wash as you can get.

That maybe your case but it’s not mine. 6 of my last 11 rounds at my club have a -1 adjustment. 4 of my 8 being used for my handicap are -1 PCC adjustments. Four out of Eight as of today.


It’s not a big deal. I don’t play in many handicap events. I just don’t understand the spike from 2023 to 2024


From the USGA today:


“ There was a minor adjustment in the tolerances for all PCC's- upward and downward so that could be resulting in a minor increase in the number.”

[Wayne_Kozun]

Maybe it isn't being used in Canada, here is what I see:
Playing Conditions Calculation

Playing Conditions Calculation (PCC)

The following scores have PCC applied:
Date     Course     CR/SL     Score     Diff     PCC Adj
No PCC adjustments applied.

[Carl Johnson]

At first I had a hard time getting my head around how a -1 PCC converted to an higher differential, which you'd expect to be the direction for an easier course.  Then it dawned on me that you subtract the PCC from the difference between the gross score and the course rating. -(-1) is plus one.  Similarly, a +1 is subtracted, reducing the differential.  Now it makes sense to me.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

At first I had a hard time getting my head around how a -1 PCC converted to an higher differential, which you'd expect to be the direction for an easier course.  Then it dawned on me that you subtract the PCC from from the difference between the gross score and the course rating. -(-1) is plus one.  Similarly, a +1 is subtracted, reducing the differential.  Now it makes sense to me.

I just think of it as a change to the course rating.


72.4 -1 = 71.4. Thus, a higher differential for the same score.

[Carl Johnson]

Correct me if my reasoning is wrong.  Course becomes permanently more difficult, but is not re-rated.  At first, +PCC will tend to predominate and handicaps will go down a little.  Then, as historical higher scores pile up, +PCC scores will slowly disappear and handicaps will go up, higher than they were initially.  The assumption is that playing ability for the members is steady.  Assuming m thinking is right, any intuitive sense on how long, how many rounds, would this take to play out.  Of if you're math inclined, your math should over come intuition.

[A.G._Crockett]

Correct me if my reasoning is wrong.  Course becomes permanently more difficult, but is not re-rated.  At first, +PCC will tend to predominate and handicaps will go down a little.  Then, as historical higher scores pile up, +PCC scores will slowly disappear and handicaps will go up, higher than they were initially.  The assumption is that playing ability for the members is steady.  Assuming m thinking is right, any intuitive sense on how long, how many rounds, would this take to play out.  Of if you're math inclined, your math should over come intuition.

Why/how would the course become “permanently more difficult”, and why would it not be rerated?

[Carl Johnson]

Correct me if my reasoning is wrong.  Course becomes permanently more difficult, but is not re-rated.  At first, +PCC will tend to predominate and handicaps will go down a little.  Then, as historical higher scores pile up, +PCC scores will slowly disappear and handicaps will go up, higher than they were initially.  The assumption is that playing ability for the members is steady.  Assuming m thinking is right, any intuitive sense on how long, how many rounds, would this take to play out.  Of if you're math inclined, your math should over come intuition.

Why/how would the course become “permanently more difficult”, and why would it not be rerated?

A.G., this is just a hypothetical, a thought experiment if you will, to try to get a better feel for how the PCCs and handicapping interrelate.

[Rob Marshall]

USGA is telling me they only made a minor change to the formula. I’m going to compare our YTD numbers thru end of July for 2023 and 2024 and see what the data shows.

[A.G._Crockett]

Correct me if my reasoning is wrong.  Course becomes permanently more difficult, but is not re-rated.  At first, +PCC will tend to predominate and handicaps will go down a little.  Then, as historical higher scores pile up, +PCC scores will slowly disappear and handicaps will go up, higher than they were initially.  The assumption is that playing ability for the members is steady.  Assuming m thinking is right, any intuitive sense on how long, how many rounds, would this take to play out.  Of if you're math inclined, your math should over come intuition.

Why/how would the course become “permanently more difficult”, and why would it not be rerated?

A.G., this is just a hypothetical, a thought experiment if you will, to try to get a better feel for how the PCCs and handicapping interrelate.

Got it.


But fwiw, I think a club that makes changes to the course can pretty quickly get it rerated.  It doesn’t even take the full rating team; someone comes out and evaluates the changes, then plugs that into the existing data to get the new rating numbers. 

[A.G._Crockett]

USGA is telling me they only made a minor change to the formula. I’m going to compare our YTD numbers thru end of July for 2023 and 2024 and see what the data shows.

Here’s mine so far; very similar number of rounds, including tournament play.


2023 thru the end of July:  6 + PCC adjustments, and only 1 minus


2024 (pending today’s round):  7 + PCC adjustments, and 5 minus adjustments




Almost all of the + adjustments both years have been in tournament play.  The big difference from 2023 to 2024 is not only the increase in minus adjustments, but that they were all “casual” play on my home course. 


I have no idea what, if any, impact that’s had on my index; it’s within half a stroke of what it was a year ago.  But it seems obvious that the PCC formula has been tweaked, and that the tweak is about adding minus adjustments.

[Rob Marshall]

Just had a print out run 2023 and 2024 PCC adjustments. From 4/15/23-8/3/23 we had two. From 4/15/24-8/3/24 we have had sixteen. 8 times as many in 2024 YTD over 2023 and this is classified as a minor adjustment to the calculation by the USGA.


We had eight more in 2023 for a total of ten. The additional eight were all in September, the two weeks after we plugged out greens.

[John Kavanaugh]

Doesn’t someone local input course setup and weather conditions?

[Rob Marshall]

Doesn’t someone local input course setup and weather conditions?

Just the scores shot for the day relative to course rating.

[John Kavanaugh]

ChatGTP is telling me that player feedback is important. Is this misinformation?



Player feedback is an important factor in the calculation of Player Course Connection (PCC) values for handicap adjustments. The USGA encourages golfers to provide feedback on the conditions they experienced during their round, including factors such as weather, course setup, and difficulty. This feedback can be submitted through various channels, such as online surveys, emails, or direct communication with the club or the USGA.


Player feedback helps the USGA assess the accuracy of the PCC values assigned to a particular day. If multiple players report that the course conditions were significantly different from the norm, the USGA may adjust the PCC value accordingly to reflect the actual playing conditions. For example, if players consistently report that the greens were unusually fast or the rough was particularly thick, the USGA may increase the PCC value to account for the increased difficulty of the course.


In summary, player feedback is used to validate and refine the PCC values assigned to each day, ensuring that handicap differentials accurately reflect the playing conditions golfers faced during their rounds.

[Rob Marshall]

I’ve been in contact with the USGA about this and player input was never mentioned once.

[Rob Marshall]

The PCC:[/size]Uses scoring data so no action is required by the club/course staff or golfer (except for posting scores),
[/color]

• Includes only scores made by players with a Handicap Index® of 36.0 or below,

• Considers both 9-hole and 18-hole scores in the calculation, and

• Only takes place if at least 8 scores were posted on a given day.

• [/size](Rule 5.6, Rules of Handicapping)[/color]

[Erik J. Barzeski]

ChatGTP is telling me that player feedback is important. Is this misinformation?

For the umpteenth time, it's just an algorithm. Nobody has to enter anything, no feedback is considered day to day, etc.

[Jim_Coleman]

   Question: If a golf course has an inordinate number of minus PCC adjustments (let’s say 15% over a material amount of time), would a course rater routinely ask for (or be given) that information when he re-rates the course?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Question: If a golf course has an inordinate number of minus PCC adjustments (let’s say 15% over a material amount of time), would a course rater routinely ask for (or be given) that information when he re-rates the course?

Not generally, no, but the PCCs will trigger some notifications to the AGA in terms of:

• The course may need to be re-rated. Did they make any significant changes to the course?
• Did conditions change? Is the course being played as rated? Did the green speed up, do they always play the course a tee marker or two forward, etc.?

Basically, a high # of PCCs can trigger the AGA to make some inquiries…

[Jim_Coleman]

Erik: Thanks.

[Rob Marshall]

"Basically, a high # of PCCs can trigger the AGA to make some inquiries…"

Except that is not happening in this case. We have 8 times as many -PCC adjustments so far in 2024 than 2023. Our AGA doesn't think anything of it. How does a minor change in the algorithm make that big of a difference?

[John Kavanaugh]

How does an algorithm alone create two different PCC’s for the same course in the same day?