Texas State Open Championship 2013

[edwin garcia]

Valerie on start signal

Blake hammering Stage 5

Dave (XRe) in perfect form

Don G making a mock dismount

MM Jr hammering Stage 6

[PhilD]

It was a great match! I shot terrible, chewed more dust than I cared for, missed way more than I cared for, but had a great time. The match staff did a great job and the stages were fun, challenging, and left a smile on your face.

[Sin-ster]

But the impact on the rest of the division would be minimal. Assuming he won the stage, I don't think he would have had a much higher HF than Jim.

I've got to contend with that point some...

2nd, 3rd and 4th A Production (two of which are friends of mine) were separated by 16 match points total. (And one of those friends beat me by .02 match points-- so self-image issues as well, LOL.)

At the same time, Kale won Stage 2 by .5 HF (only 5%), Stage 6 by 1 HF (11%), Stage 9 by .8 HF (12%), and Stage 11 by ~1 HF (~17%). Assuming he did indeed win Stage 5 as well, it actually could have been a big issue across the whole Division indeed as it was a 130 point stage.

That said-- spilt milk, and mistakes happen. Essentially any other shooter (and perhaps Kale in this case as well) would not have mattered-- but a disrupted HHF is kind of a big deal when there are really close races within the Division.

[M118LR]

Where are the scores posted?

[CHA-LEE]

They are posted on the USPSA website in the Major Match result section.

[Bunchies95]

But the impact on the rest of the division would be minimal. Assuming he won the stage, I don't think he would have had a much higher HF than Jim.

I've got to contend with that point some...

2nd, 3rd and 4th A Production (two of which are friends of mine) were separated by 16 match points total. (And one of those friends beat me by .02 match points-- so self-image issues as well, LOL.)

At the same time, Kale won Stage 2 by .5 HF (only 5%), Stage 6 by 1 HF (11%), Stage 9 by .8 HF (12%), and Stage 11 by ~1 HF (~17%). Assuming he did indeed win Stage 5 as well, it actually could have been a big issue across the whole Division indeed as it was a 130 point stage.

That said-- spilt milk, and mistakes happen. Essentially any other shooter (and perhaps Kale in this case as well) would not have mattered-- but a disrupted HHF is kind of a big deal when there are really close races within the Division.

With very close races such as yours, a higher hit factor would have made a difference. If Kale would have won by a full hit factor, you would have beaten your buddy by ~1 point. But that is only because you had a lower HF on that stage. If you would have beaten him on that stage, he would have won more soundly. Kinda strange right?

The reason is everyone loses the same percentage of match points when a higher HF is established. So when you do really well on the stage, you lose more points than somebody who did poorly.

Looking through the stage results, only 14/15 and 27/28 would switch places with a full point increase in HHF.

And yes I am that much of a nerd (with free time) that I figured this out.

[beltjones]

They probably shouldn't use this match as a classifier (at least for Production) as the super squad got to shoot in markedly different conditions from the rest of us, and because Kale's real performance wasn't captured in the data. Just saying.

[CHA-LEE]

Why wouldnt the Production Scores stand as is? Its up to the shooter to validate their scores. The score keeper team tries their best to make sure that the scores are valid but its up to each shooter to validate the accuracy of their scores. Match results were posted on the USPSA website Saturday evening, so if Kale really wanted to validate his scores and see that one of his stage runs was missing he could have done that. Hell, anyone on his squad could have taken the hard copy score sheet in to the stats team on Sunday and gotten a valid stage score for him.

I don't mean to throw anyone under the bus, but if you don't validate your own scores how can you expect someone else to be responsible for validating it?

[Bunchies95]

Why wouldnt the Production Scores stand as is?

They should.

They probably shouldn't use this match as a classifier (at least for Production) as the super squad got to shoot in markedly different conditions from the rest of us, and because Kale's real performance wasn't captured in the data. Just saying.

Shooting in the mud didn't impact me much. Heck, my first stage of the day was one of my best for the match. Now the second stage, no amount of dry ground could have salvaged that.

And that was my highest match performance to date. I want that on my record.

[beltjones]

Why wouldnt the Production Scores stand as is?

They should.

They probably shouldn't use this match as a classifier (at least for Production) as the super squad got to shoot in markedly different conditions from the rest of us, and because Kale's real performance wasn't captured in the data. Just saying.

Shooting in the mud didn't impact me much. Heck, my first stage of the day was one of my best for the match. Now the second stage, no amount of dry ground could have salvaged that.

And that was my highest match performance to date. I want that on my record.

I totally get that if you leave early and don't check your scores, it's on you if there is a problem. That should be the rule whether you're the last place D or in contention to win the match.

However, your overall match performance percentage is certainly inflated due to Kale's missing score. And while you think shooting in the mud didn't effect you much, I'm sure that doesn't apply to everyone, especially considering there is such variation in the number of stages everyone shot in the mud. Some people shot 0 stages in the mud (the SS), and others shot 4. A scoring error combined with vastly different conditions for different shooters means, even if you like what the number will do for your classification percentage, it's probably not a fair evaluation of your ability compared to theirs.

[beltjones]

Why wouldnt the Production Scores stand as is? Its up to the shooter to validate their scores. The score keeper team tries their best to make sure that the scores are valid but its up to each shooter to validate the accuracy of their scores. Match results were posted on the USPSA website Saturday evening, so if Kale really wanted to validate his scores and see that one of his stage runs was missing he could have done that. Hell, anyone on his squad could have taken the hard copy score sheet in to the stats team on Sunday and gotten a valid stage score for him.

I don't mean to throw anyone under the bus, but if you don't validate your own scores how can you expect someone else to be responsible for validating it?

I don't think anyone has suggested that the scores shouldn't stand. If they have, my mistake.

[Flatland Shooter]

Don't hold me to this but I didn't see Kale on Sunday. I assume they left after they finished on Saturday vs stay for the mud.

I may have missed it in the thread, but does anyone here know if Kale even shot Stage 5?

[Bunchies95]

Don't hold me to this but I didn't see Kale on Sunday. I assume they left after they finished on Saturday vs stay for the mud.

I may have missed it in the thread, but does anyone here know if Kale even shot Stage 5?

Since everyone in the squad shot stage 5, and Jordan says the score is missing, it would be a very very good assumption he did.

[JorDanO]

Yes Kale did shoot Stage 5. I can't remember his time, but it was a pretty competitive run. I guess the moral of the story is to always check your scores, and if one is missing don't assume that it will be entered later.

When we finished on Saturday I thought that everyone else had gotten 12 stages in as well. We had our share of waiting. We had to wait for the whole squad in front of us to shoot stage 4. Our squad was pretty small due to 4 or 5 no shows, but everyone helped tape and reset so we were able to finish stage 12 with barely any light left. We were very motivated to miss the impending mud, and it was nice to get on the road earlier on Sunday.

The Stock 3 ran great! Hopefully I'll get a video up later this week.

[JB38Super]

His time was in the low to mid 16 with good hits. He beat me on it..........................

Someone mentioned hard copy of scores? Never saw em the whole day.

Andy's right; no classifier. Too many other issues

[spanky]

His time was in the low to mid 16 with good hits. He beat me on it..........................

Someone mentioned hard copy of scores? Never saw em the whole day.

Andy's right; no classifier. Too many other issues

I saw hard copys on every stage. We signed after each run.

[38SuperDub]

Y'all just need a better squad mom Jim.

And before anyone asks. That's salsa from the Mexican restaurant after day 1 and 2-3 margaritas.

(I would put the damn photo of 1 of my 2 mikes for the whole match on top. Oh well)

Edited March 12, 2013 by bsdubois00

[spanky]

[Sin-ster]

With very close races such as yours, a higher hit factor would have made a difference. If Kale would have won by a full hit factor, you would have beaten your buddy by ~1 point. But that is only because you had a lower HF on that stage. If you would have beaten him on that stage, he would have won more soundly. Kinda strange right?

The reason is everyone loses the same percentage of match points when a higher HF is established. So when you do really well on the stage, you lose more points than somebody who did poorly.

Looking through the stage results, only 14/15 and 27/28 would switch places with a full point increase in HHF.

And yes I am that much of a nerd (with free time) that I figured this out.

Nope, not strange at all-- just math, LOL.

Thanks for calculating all of that, though! Based on your stats and the comments in this thread, I can definitely tell J that he didn't beat me at all. Boom.

As to the mud-- it was as varied of a factor stage-to-stage on Day 2 as it was when compared to the same stages on Day 1. We shot 9 (the horse/bull) first thing, before they had poured the new sand-- and since I opted to shoot without ever stopping, I can say for sure that it was a big physical factor-- not to mention a psychological one (i.e. "gotta be careful with my footing in this mud"). That's Mother Nature, no one to blame for it-- but just one of a handful of reasons why I'd have to say that it should not stand as a Classifier.

Mild aside-- I had a blast shooting in that mud, but I think we were all DOG tired after slogging through it all day.

ETA-- I just remembered that Stage 5 was the one with the super-problematic poppers and plate. Probably should have been tossed anyway, IMO.

Edited March 12, 2013 by Sin-ster

[moonshoxx]

Look, i am just a D class limited hero so to speak. However, how they did not throw out stage 5 is a mystery to me. Plates and poppers that would not fall, moving fault lines, LOL. No hard feelings either way. I am either D Champ or D second and shot just terribly. Also, did not get a shirt i thought i paid for but that is another story

[CHA-LEE]

The way I see it dealing with Weather or Changed Match Schedules is part of the "Practical" portion of this sport. This is "Practical Shooting" not "Best Conditions Shooting". The shooters who were able to shoot all 12 stages on Saturday were not in perfect conditions either. I didn't plan on shooting all 12 stages on Saturday and only brought enough food for an 8 stage day at the range. That is my fault for not bringing enough food, but this is a good example of being pushed outside of your "optimal performance" zone because you are hungry and exhausted. Shooting the last stage of the day in the dark and not being able to see my sights at all is another good example. I would have loved to shoot the last 4 - 5 stages of the day in better "Conditions" but it is what it is. You gotta suck it up and push through the best you can.

[Sin-ster]

The way I see it dealing with Weather or Changed Match Schedules is part of the "Practical" portion of this sport. This is "Practical Shooting" not "Best Conditions Shooting". The shooters who were able to shoot all 12 stages on Saturday were not in perfect conditions either. I didn't plan on shooting all 12 stages on Saturday and only brought enough food for an 8 stage day at the range. That is my fault for not bringing enough food, but this is a good example of being pushed outside of your "optimal performance" zone because you are hungry and exhausted. Shooting the last stage of the day in the dark and not being able to see my sights at all is another good example. I would have loved to shoot the last 4 - 5 stages of the day in better "Conditions" but it is what it is. You gotta suck it up and push through the best you can.

I agree 100% Charlie, and I actually enjoyed the challenges posed by the conditions on the 2nd day. I shot so poorly on Saturday that it didn't matter anyway-- which helps.

However, for the sake of Classification, I think it's a big factor. That's the whole reason we have such detailed diagrams for the Classifiers in the first place, including target heights, exactly where to mount No Shoots, etc.

In this case, unlike a single Short Course or Standards Exercise with a fixed HHF, the top, middle AND low end were all potentially effected by the changing conditions. I don't think it should be the veritable Barry Bonds asterisk by the Match Scores, but just the same-- it was not ideal (or perhaps even acceptable) conditions to say, "Here's how we ought to rank shooter X, based on the performance of shooters Y and Z."

Not that I personally care-- I'm Grandbagging anyway, obviously. But I know of several folks who either need to move up or are trying to move up who could be hurt by a 5-10% drop in a Classifier score as this one bumps off another during the next cycle. And that really sucks!

[CHA-LEE]

This match will only show up as a single classification instance, its not like it is the one and only classification record that defines your overall classification. There will never be a good way to ensure that classifier stage performance will match major match performance. Look at the nationals for example, there are usually a crap ton of SOLID GM's that don't have a 95+% overall finish result but they end up getting that listed on their classification record.

Attending major matches does come with the risk/reward of getting a lower or higher than expected classification entry listed in your classification record based on your overall performance, which also includes the unknown variables that do happen at major matches like this.

[beltjones]

Fair point Charlie, but at least for Production one of the determining factors in everyone's percentage is a scoring error. That's not very practical.

[Sin-ster]

There will never be a good way to ensure that classifier stage performance will match major match performance.

Sure there is-- it simply doesn't!

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Of all the Majors I've shot in the past 2 years (obviously fewer than you in a lifetime), this is the only one that I feel could be problematic. Unlike a standard Classifier, it's not a situation where you're tanking well below your minimal percentage-- for the D, C and B class range, this one is going to make a difference one way or another.

And for a handful of shooters, it could be a dramatic swing if it knocks off a high percentage with one below their target "moving up" range. Hard to say whether or not that's a sweeping issue across the majority of the shooters that attended the match, but is it problematic to not count it even so?