Do classifiers really represent a full skill set test of a GM?

[uscbigdawg]

Something else to consider. When you win your class...you didn't win the match. So...who cares? I'm trying to win the whole match.

Of course...I'm for eliminating classifications at Level 3 and above matches (maybe Level 2).

Rich

[JThompson]

Getting classified GM would be relatively easy for me to do

So are you sandbagging then? Let the chips falls where the fall, it is only an insult to you to hold back on classifiers for fear of being embarrassed by being beaten by anyone. Do you want fear to drive you or passion to succeed? There is no success without lots of failure, and if you are worried about being beaten, you can not focus on doing what it takes to win

My skill set leans toward stand and blast stuff. It would not be hard to practice all the upcoming classifiers to the point where I could shoot them GM level. I need to work on stage planing movement, getting in and out of shooting positions, shooting on the move. Until I get better at those skills there is no point in grandbagging two classes above where I should currently be. I'd be hard pressed to keep up with the top A class at a national. Taking that into consideration, I don't see the point in getting a GM card when I only shoot M on stages that have little movement or stage planning, such as the classifiers.

[CHA-LEE]

The more I think about the classification system the more I feel that it would be very hard to create a 100% accurate skill rating system that could be deployed and used easily by many different clubs/shooters across the nation. There is really no way to “Rate” unbalanced skill sets of shooters fairly. For example, you could have a shooter that can draw and reload fast but their accuracy is poor. Then you have another shooter that can shoot very accurately, but his draws and reloads are slow. With the averaging of hit factors these two shooters could end up in the same classification level but the skill sets they are competent at are completely different.

Given the random nature of which classifiers are shot by which skill set shooter it exasperates this skill set difference even more.

With all of the discussion on this thread, I guess I am coming full circle in understanding that the current classification system pretty much “works” at a basic level for rating the core skills of a shooter. In the shooters I have seen, the class they are currently rated pretty much reflects the level of shooting they perform on a regular basis. The only class that I think has a large variance in skill level is B class. A low level B class shooter (60% – 65%) will usually get owned by a high level B class shooter (70% – 74%) in almost all skill sets. I think this is why you get so many low level B class shooters claiming that high level B class shooters are “Sandbagging” when they are really just shooting at a true high B level. To a certain extent I am sure that this can apply to every classification level.

[uscbigdawg]

Exactly!

[SA Friday]

I also have seen dramatic gains in skill level from certain shooters over the last three years. Every once and a while, there is that B class shooter that solidifies their core skills, has revelation, and shoots straight to M class. Seen it a couple of times.

The system works as it is. There are a few small problems here and there, but it's a fair and equatable measurement of every shooter across the country. It's a better system than any other I've seen out there so far, and being able to strive for that next level of shooting, I believe, has actually driven the shooting in USPSA to an overall higher level of shooting over the years. The classification system has the ability to readjust to the higher and higher shooting level in USPSA over all and push the cut-of limits. Look at the times on El Prez for example and how they have dwindled over the years to where you have GM's shooting it in 3-4 sec's now.

The more I shoot, the more I understand that consistancy becomes more and more vital through class progression.

[shred]

I also have seen dramatic gains in skill level from certain shooters over the last three years. Every once and a while, there is that B class shooter that solidifies their core skills, has revelation, and shoots straight to M class. Seen it a couple of times.

Yeah, A-class is only a short stopover for many. To get out of B you've gotta be pretty good. A little firming up on the consistency and you're at M.

The Jet used to say the person he wanted to go up against least in a shootoff was a good B-class shooter-- he said they had the skills to get the gun out and across the targets as fast as he could shoot them consistently, and nothing to lose.

[eerw]

The more I shoot, the more I understand that consistancy becomes more and more vital through class progression.

that is probably the shortcoming of the classification system.

a classifier is one stage at one moment in time. hero or zero. bad ones thrown out, good ones kept. keep six. classification

a match is not a hero or zero moment in time. it is consistent performance of a series of stages over a period of time. perform all better than the rest. HOA.

but as a basic measure of skills.. it works.

Edited June 18, 2009 by eerw

[Loves2Shoot]

Draw fast then shoot and reload fast and accurate. I think it is that simple.

Then why doesn't everyone have a GM card in their wallet?

Excuses.

[CHA-LEE]

Not to throw a monkey wrench in all of this, but……… I also feel that quite a few of the classifiers 100% Hit Factors are fairly conservative when you compare it to the abilities of solid GM’s. I have witnessed first hand where GM’s blow the 100% HF of a given classifier out of the water (110% – 125%). This just goes to show that really, the sky is the limit and there is no need to perform within the limitations of the current classification system.

Edited June 18, 2009 by CHA-LEE

[Loves2Shoot]

Getting classified GM would be relatively easy for me to do

So are you sandbagging then? Let the chips falls where the fall, it is only an insult to you to hold back on classifiers for fear of being embarrassed by being beaten by anyone. Do you want fear to drive you or passion to succeed? There is no success without lots of failure, and if you are worried about being beaten, you can not focus on doing what it takes to win

My skill set leans toward stand and blast stuff. It would not be hard to practice all the upcoming classifiers to the point where I could shoot them GM level. I need to work on stage planing movement, getting in and out of shooting positions, shooting on the move. Until I get better at those skills there is no point in grandbagging two classes above where I should currently be. I'd be hard pressed to keep up with the top A class at a national. Taking that into consideration, I don't see the point in getting a GM card when I only shoot M on stages that have little movement or stage planning, such as the classifiers.

I was just giving you a hard time as you said it would be easy to do for you. It isn't Grandbagging if you can do it, and where you "should" be depends only on you. If you can legitimately (not shoot a stage ten times to get a hero score) shoot a 95% score, then you deserve it.

My serious point was mindset. I don't get the benefit from comparing yourself to how you think you would rate against others. I think that mindset holds a lot of people back. If you can shoot 95% classifiers, you would break down a lot of barriers, and once those barriers are gone, you open yourself to a lot of opportunity.

[SA Friday]

Not to throw a monkey wrench in all of this, but……… I also feel that quite a few of the classifiers 100% Hit Factors are fairly conservative when you compare it to the abilities of solid GM’s. I have witnessed first hand where GM’s blow the 100% HF of a given classifier out of the water (110% – 125%). This just goes to show that really, the sky is the limit and there is no need to perform within the limitations of the current classification system.

The classifiers get adjusted as the percentages push it up or down. This is the progression in overall shooting I was talking about. As the GM's burn them down, the bar gets raised.

[Flexmoney]

When? What is the process to raise the bar?

That ought to be somewhat automated, yet I don't know that it is?

[SA Friday]

Sendro adjusts the classifiers based on scores once a year (periodically). I wish it was automatic. I know of a few that would drop drastically in production division instantly.

This is talked about quite extensively in this thread

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...fier+100+adjust

I know there are even more threads on this. I remember one update about three years ago impacted quite a few classifiers and some went down in hf.

Edited June 24, 2009 by SA Friday

[bbbean]

I think some of the critics of the current system may be focusing on outliers. When I look at the results of most major matches, the classes seem to line up pretty well, with a little bit of overlap. Sure, there's always a C or B class shooter who surprises everyone and finishes with the shooters 2 classes above them, but for the most part, the GMs are at the top and the Ds are at the bottom. I haven't run the stats, but I'd wager that class and finish percentage at major tournaments have a pretty strong correlation.

[DyNo!]

No, I'm a solid "B" class shooter and I was able to shoot a master class classifier without using iron sights:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...c=87723&hl=

[lugnut]

No, I'm a solid "B" class shooter and I was able to shoot a master class classifier without using iron sights:

http://www.brianenos.com/forums/index.php?...c=87723&hl=

You are a 'B' shooter.. and shot a master classifier. Both are classifier results.

Funny... I just reviewed the results of a major match.... I am classified as middle 'B' as well... and I ended up in the middle of 'B'! Although the classifiers test somewhat different skills that typical matches with more movement and decision making... I feel that somehow it is reflective of the overall field course skill as well. May be some variation... but there is a strong correlation for the most part IMO.

My views of this have changed in the recent past... the sytem is not that far off from match performances... look at the distributions and matches... there is some mixing but it's very consistent... Ms then As then Bs, etc.

Edited August 12, 2009 by lugnut

[boz1911]

Not to throw a monkey wrench in all of this, but……… I also feel that quite a few of the classifiers 100% Hit Factors are fairly conservative when you compare it to the abilities of solid GM's. I have witnessed first hand where GM's blow the 100% HF of a given classifier out of the water (110% – 125%). This just goes to show that really, the sky is the limit and there is no need to perform within the limitations of the current classification system.

Like this: Classifier 03-08 Madness

Local Match Result

January 27, 2008 COOL SPRINGS GUN CLUB

Stage 5 Madness Place Name No. Class Division Points Penalties Time Hit Factor Stage Pts Stage % 1Max M.9GMOpen69 points5.57 12.3878 HF 100.00%

approximately 114.17 %

Edited August 12, 2009 by boz1911

[Dwain C. Baer]

I completely agree, why is there no long/field course classifiers ??

If there were field course classifiers, my % would be in much better shape ..

Periodically my performance is better on field courses, but there are times when my performance is better during the shorter courses. Still trying to determine why that happens .

[FN fan]

People that win matches, do well at classifiers. The reverse is not true.

Rich

So very true.........

+1

[pjb45]

A single classifier is a single data point. Comparing a single data to an average of the top 4 out of 6 data points is bad statistics. It is hard to tell if the data point is a trend or outlier.

The exception does not prove the case.

The classification system tries to measure everyone on the same set of skills, perhaps some skills unique for that classifier but for the most part a standard subset of skills; draws, reloads some slight movement and accuracy. It can be viewed as the baseline minimum criteria needed to be classified or put into a strata.

That is all. By the very nature of statistics, not everyone can be a GM. A GM by definition ranks in the top 5% of the distribution of shooters.

Among the elite GMs, they will always be in the top of any match on the average. Most GMs, on the average will be near the top. Statistics does allow for anomalies, one shooter having a great day or two and shooting way above his/her normal expectations.

The full skill set test of a GM is their performance in Major Matches. Each Area has its own personality which tend to be reflected in the match COFs. So GMs that perform well in all Area Championship and Nationals is used as the final true measure of the full skill set of a GM.

[Corey]

i tink over time the classification seems to work. Looking at myself, i had been a c class shooter in SS and didnt think i was ready for B yet. Then things started to click and i was beating B shooters here and there. after a few good matches, I got bumped up to B (right before the IN section match). I had been hoping to shoot it as a C (knowing after my previous performances I could beat C shooters on a regular basis). turns out the system worked and i finish in the top 3 of B class. I got bumped when i should have been after a succession of quality performances. When the time comes for another bump, itll happen when it happens. When shooters are performing at higher levels, they get bumped up.

[jar]

That is all. By the very nature of statistics, not everyone can be a GM. A GM by definition ranks in the top 5% of the distribution of shooters.

This isn't necessarily true. A GM is within 5% of the high hit factor. This doesn't necessarily mean they're in the top 5% of the distribution. In open, the top 3% of classified shooters are GMs. In production, it's 1%.

[JThompson]

I used to get my nose all bent out of shape about this stuff, but I just don't care that much anymore. I fall into the "Grandbagger" list and it's because I'm pretty damn fast out of the holster and shooting standing still. Case and point I threw a Mike on the last classifier and took 1 reshoot. The reshoot was 98%. My stage planning is not bad, but my short term memory sucks, so I often have trouble executing that plan. I'm a big guy and not in the best shape, so my movement isn't the best either. There are also some health issues involved, but I'm not going to go into that here.

My match performance is probably middle A at a Nat level, if I don't have a to many memory stages and my brain doesn't fade to badly. I don't really care though because I know I'm never going to win a Nat or even a section match. Oh, I might be able to pull a section if I really worked on it, but I don't care to do so. I don't dryfire and before that last 98% I hadn't shot, but maybe 100 rounds in the month prior. Shooting is not my life and there have been some other issues that make it less than fun to practice at my local.

I hold an M card and I am M if I stand and blast. I'll probably make GM in a couple of months, but again, that will be a stand and shoot GM. I can live with that and don't give a damn who feels how about it.

I wise man once said, "Shut up and shoot."

JT

Edited August 17, 2010 by JThompson

[Supermoto]

I think classification would be more accurate if they took the best 6 of the last 8, none of this 5% below your classification stuff.

You shoot it, you own it. Drop 2 for bad luck,

I have classifiers that are over a year old. I pushed for my M a year ago, then realized I don't need to shoot a M classifier to win a match, Now I shoot them as high risk low reward stages

I would drop from 90% to 80%.

[lugnut]

I think classification would be more accurate if they took the best 6 of the last 8, none of this 5% below your classification stuff.

You shoot it, you own it. Drop 2 for bad luck,

I have classifiers that are over a year old. I pushed for my M a year ago, then realized I don't need to shoot a M classifier to win a match, Now I shoot them as high risk low reward stages

I would drop from 90% to 80%.

I disagree Mike. Why? Because although many of your older classifiers are what got you to Master- your Master competitors have recent ones. And you fair VERY well against them. As far as the classification system itself.. I have some issues with the way USPSA does it but overall it's pretty accurate IMO.