OT-PCC Handicap adjustment/re-rating

[Rob Marshall]

Erik, is our Allied Association then wrong that there are more negative adjustments than positive adjustments.  “Generally” speaking.

[Jason Topp]

Played in a crazy difficult qualifier at Northland Country Club last week.  The course is on a significant slope pointing down to Lake Superior and the greens tilt with the natural slope even when they do not look like they do (similar to the effect at Pasatiempo).  Wind in the high teens gusting to 30 blowing downhill meant that sidehill/downhill putts were not going to stop anwhere nice if you missed. 


It was quite fun as long as you set your pride aside.  You had to put the ball below the hole and hit good uphill lag putts.  From above the hole a three putt was a decent result.  Thankfully, the rest of the event was match play which allows you to be more aggressive with the short ones.


 My seemingly terrible score wound up as one of my eight counting scores for my handicap with stroke control and the PCC adjustment of +3. 

[John Kavanaugh]

Played in a crazy difficult qualifier at Northland Country Club last week.  The course is on a significant slope pointing down to Lake Superior and the greens tilt with the natural slope even when they do not look like they do (similar to the effect at Pasatiempo).  Wind in the high teens gusting to 30 blowing downhill meant that sidehill/downhill putts were not going to stop anwhere nice if you missed. 


It was quite fun as long as you set your pride aside.  You had to put the ball below the hole and hit good uphill lag putts.  From above the hole a three putt was a decent result.  Thankfully, the rest of the event was match play which allows you to be more aggressive with the short ones.


 My seemingly terrible score wound up as one of my eight counting scores for my handicap with stroke control and the PCC adjustment of +3.

If you’re an honest golfer who plays by the rules everyday you better avoid tournaments that requires all golfers to do the same.

[A.G._Crockett]

Erik, is our Allied Association then wrong that there are more negative adjustments than positive adjustments.  “Generally” speaking.

I know you addressed this to Erik, but here’s what I’ve seen in 2023 and 2024 so far.  I think I’ve already posted these numbers, but they are contrary enough to what you are seeing that they might be helpful.  They’re also based on a decent sample size, including a lot of away rounds and a lot of competition scores.


In 2023, thru this same date, I had 7 PCCs; 6 were plus and only one was a minus.  For the full year, out of 157 posted rounds, I had 16 PCCs, with 15 of the 16 being plus. All but one of the 15 plus adjustments we’re tournament rounds.


In 2024 YTD, I’ve had 12 PCC adjustments; 7 have been plus and 5 have been minus.  That’s out of 102 posted rounds, including 30 or so tournament rounds.  (The only significant difference in my tournament schedule so far this year is that I did NOT play this year in a two day tournament at Mid Pines and Pine Needles; last year both rounds AND a practice round all received plus adjustments.)


So that’s a significant increase in minus PCCs, leading to an overall increase, but certainly nothing that indicates to me that there are now more minus adjustments that plus adjustments.  So again, TO ME, it looks like a tweak of the algorithm, but nothing more than that.

[Rob Marshall]

AG, That's not the case with us as I've stated before. The truly frustrating thing is that I'm getting conflicting information from our Allied Association and the USGA. Personally, I'm getting the feeling that I'm purposely being given vague answers by the USGA when asking a pretty straight forward question. I've beaten this horse to death and not gotten any real answers...........

[John Kavanaugh]

Rob,


Please don’t give up until someone tells you the truth to your satisfaction. The USGA has hired an independent company to run this algorithm. This company increases profits by instituting change in their software. They just did a tweak and you felt the results. We are being driven towards mandatory hole by hole posting. Why? To catch cheaters. At whose expense? Honest golfers.

[Wayne_Kozun]

My club has had mandatory hole by hole reporting for a few years.  IMO it isn't a big deal. It also gives the club the data to do a better job on stroke allocation.

[John Kavanaugh]

Eventually we will have mid-round handicap adjustments to keep everything close. Every match comes down to the last hole. It’s what dreams are made of.


While this sounds far fetched it is entirely plausible with a hole by hole historical data base that also contains conditions and course set up. We all know the choke points of ourselves and our buddies. Now the computer knows it too and makes everything even.

[Carl Johnson]

On the re-rating side of this, does anyone know if the rules and procedures (i.e., what you measure and how you grade) for rating courses are publicly available?  I haven't been able to find them, and when I participated on ratings teams about 12 years ago we weren't given anything in writing -- all the "training" was oral.  A week ago I emailed Greg Kelly, who's in charge of ratings for the Carolinas Golf Association, to see if I could get a copy of the written material, but have not received a response, even of "No."  Greg's title is: "Director of Course Rating & Membership."  Another CGA official did tell me that Greg was the right person to contact, and that he (the other official) did not know if the rules were publicly available.

[A.G._Crockett]

On the re-rating side of this, does anyone know if the rules and procedures (i.e., what you measure and how you grade) for rating courses are publicly available?  I haven't been able to find them, and when I participated on ratings teams about 12 years ago we weren't given anything in writing -- all the "training" was oral.  A week ago I emailed Greg Kelly, who's in charge of ratings for the Carolinas Golf Association, to see if I could get a copy of the written material, but have not received a response, even of "No."  Greg's title is: "Director of Course Rating & Membership."  Another CGA official did tell me that Greg was the right person to contact, and that he (the other official) did not know if the rules were publicly available.

Fwiw…


Were I the one in Greg Kelly’s position, I absolutely would NOT make the rating materials public.  The simple reason is that I wouldn’t want to contend with submissions of “reratings” by untrained golfers who are dissatisfied with the current rating of their course, and then having to explain the differences to them.  At almost every course, there are large numbers of golfers who consider the current course rating to be either too high or too low; can you imagine having your OB include justifying ratings to people who are submitting their own ratings?


There are over 1000 golf courses in the Carolinas, and not only do all of them have to be regularly rerated, but requests come in all the time for ratings of hybrid sets of tees, rating adjustments after renovations, and so on.  Just yesterday, I was at Finley, and got to hear a discussion about two new sets of hybrid tees that are being planned.


I can’t really imagine doing Mr. Kelly’s job anyway, much less having it include a flood of extra paperwork.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Given that we now have a global system then isn't every country supposed to be using a consistent methodology to do course and slope ratings?  So wouldn't the USGA and R&A proposed a consistent methodology that is sent to all national golf bodies for them to be able to rate their courses?  So the info may not be public, but it has been widely disseminated so I would think that you could it if you really tried.

[Wayne_Kozun]

There are over 1000 golf courses in the Carolinas, and not only do all of them have to be regularly rerated, but requests come in all the time for ratings of hybrid sets of tees, rating adjustments after renovations, and so on.  Just yesterday, I was at Finley, and got to hear a discussion about two new sets of hybrid tees that are being planned.

Can't you just interpolate and get a rating that is close enough?
For example my course has Blue tees with a rating of 71.2/135.  The White tees are 68.7/130.  If you take the average of those two data points you get 70.0/133.  We have a hybrid Blue/White tee - called the Greens, that are rated at 69.8/133.
edit - Fixed typo for slope of White tees from 120 to 130.

[Carl Johnson]

There are over 1000 golf courses in the Carolinas, and not only do all of them have to be regularly rerated, but requests come in all the time for ratings of hybrid sets of tees, rating adjustments after renovations, and so on.  Just yesterday, I was at Finley, and got to hear a discussion about two new sets of hybrid tees that are being planned.

Can't you just interpolate and get a rating that is close enough?
For example my course has Blue tees with a rating of 71.2/135.  The White tees are 68.7/120.  If you take the average of those two data points you get 70.0/133.  We have a hybrid Blue/White tee - called the Greens, that are rated at 69.8/133.

As I understand it (and it is only an understanding), each hole has a rating and slope for each set of tees.  Therefore, it's a simple task of just pulling the slope and rating for each tee combination and adding them up.  No interpolation is necessary and the work could be done by anyone with the base numbers.  So, I think each course could be given the numbers for tees for each of their holes and create their own hybrids, with ease.  Repeat.  This is what I've been told by others.  I realize that it might not be correct.  Although I am not a computer expert, it would seem like you could put the numbers in a spread sheet program and generate the hybrids with 19 clicks, one for each hole plus one for done. It would be useful to learn if my understanding is correct, from an insider.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Thanks Carl, that makes a ton of sense.

[Carl Johnson]

On the re-rating side of this, does anyone know if the rules and procedures (i.e., what you measure and how you grade) for rating courses are publicly available?  I haven't been able to find them, and when I participated on ratings teams about 12 years ago we weren't given anything in writing -- all the "training" was oral.  A week ago I emailed Greg Kelly, who's in charge of ratings for the Carolinas Golf Association, to see if I could get a copy of the written material, but have not received a response, even of "No."  Greg's title is: "Director of Course Rating & Membership."  Another CGA official did tell me that Greg was the right person to contact, and that he (the other official) did not know if the rules were publicly available.

Fwiw…

Were I the one in Greg Kelly’s position, I absolutely would NOT make the rating materials public.  The simple reason is that I wouldn’t want to contend with submissions of “reratings” by untrained golfers who are dissatisfied with the current rating of their course, and then having to explain the differences to them.  At almost every course, there are large numbers of golfers who consider the current course rating to be either too high or too low; can you imagine having your OB include justifying ratings to people who are submitting their own ratings?


There are over 1000 golf courses in the Carolinas, and not only do all of them have to be regularly rerated, but requests come in all the time for ratings of hybrid sets of tees, rating adjustments after renovations, and so on.  Just yesterday, I was at Finley, and got to hear a discussion about two new sets of hybrid tees that are being planned.


I can’t really imagine doing Mr. Kelly’s job anyway, much less having it include a flood of extra paperwork.

A.G., no doubt Kelly has a tough job.  I'd bet lots of folks like me would like to know the ratings procedures.  If there are good reasons for keeping them secret, as you point out, then (if I were in charge), I'd just put a statement to that effect on the website with a simple explanation of the reasons for the secrecy.  I, for one, would accept that.

[John Kavanaugh]

Who decides who is mature enough to handle the truth? I’ve know a ton of professional cheaters in my 50+ years of playing money games and no one knows the untold secrets better than them.

[Rob Marshall]

We’re closing in on 10 times the number of PCC’s from last year with a nearly identical course conditions and I can’t get any useful information from the USGA or our allied? Maybe we just have more sandbaggers playing matches on those days. In our presidents cup we had a 15 shoot a 37 on the front nine yesterday to have a 5 up lead over a 3 who shot 36. Day ended with another -1. Let’s help that guy keep his handicap higher.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Given that we now have a global system then isn't every country supposed to be using a consistent methodology to do course and slope ratings?  So wouldn't the USGA and R&A proposed a consistent methodology that is sent to all national golf bodies for them to be able to rate their courses?  So the info may not be public, but it has been widely disseminated so I would think that you could it if you really tried.

Of course there's published information, with manuals and books and tests and national training/meetings, etc. The methodology is consistent, and has been since the WHS rolled out years ago.

We’re closing in on 10 times the number of PCC’s from last year

Thank goodness you had those TWO last year or it could be TWENTY times more if you had just one, or INFINITELY higher if you had zero!

One time a reporter said that the new iPhone was something like 80% hotter than the previous generation because the temperature went from 20° C to 36° C or something… I joked that it's good the original phone wasn't like 1° or an increase of 8° would be an 800% increase! Or if it was -1° and went to 1°… (Anyway, the reporter should have used the Kelvin scale if they wanted to report a % increase in temperature, but that wouldn't have been headline grabbing like a tiny sample size of 2 going to 16, or an iPhone getting 80% hotter. 

[Chris Hughes]

AG, That's not the case with us as I've stated before. The truly frustrating thing is that I'm getting conflicting information from our Allied Association and the USGA. Personally, I'm getting the feeling that I'm purposely being given vague answers by the USGA when asking a pretty straight forward question. I've beaten this horse to death and not gotten any real answers...........

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...

The "World Handicap System" (WHS) is an abomination hitherto unknown to the people of this area, yet destined to take the place of the mudshark in your mythology... 

(update soon)
 

[Chris Hughes]

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

That's a pretty small sample size...

How many folks are in your "eClub"?

[Rob Marshall]

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.


18 more is significant Erik, and I find it interesting that I can't get any explanation from the USGA or our Allied.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

How many folks are in your "eClub"?

Why do you ask? 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!!!"?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

[Rob Marshall]

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.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.