What should the Classifier emphasize?

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

A local range recently held a Classifier-Plus match -- the IDPA Classifier plus another stage -- and shooters generally did not classify at their apparent skill-level. For instance, none of the CDP Experts or Masters scored above Sharpshooter, an up-and-coming Sharpshooter who has been beating Experts and Masters scored Sharpshooter too, etc.

It really does seem like the Classifier is its own thing, with an emphasis on long-range shooting, the "weirdness" of limited scoring, and very little lateral movement. Certainly it's a measure of shooting skill, but it doesn't really measure the skills that make a good competitor -- at least not to the same degree as more typically match stages.

If you were to design a Classifier Course of Fire, what would go in it, and would would get left out?

[motosapiens]

I've been shooting a year-ish, but around here it seems like there is a correlation between classifiers and match results. Perhaps that is because our matches typically have a mix of shorter and longer shooting distances. If your local matches are biased towards close-range stages, then people might not bother practicing at longer ranges. Many people who don't practice longer shots got hammered on stage 3 at our last classifier. Some people just have bad days, or bad stages (or really good days or stages) that can skew a particular result.

I don't really see any issue with the current classifier setup. Assuming you actually try to do well at it, you have to do a little bit of everything, draw and shoot fast, shoot fast accurate splits, make fast transitions, longer shots, reloads, movement, etc... Yes, it would be cool if there was a reasonable way to have more dynamic targets (swingers, drop-turners, etc...), but that would not be feasible to standardize. The current COF can be replicated by anyone with a tape measure, barrel, and $50 worth of lumber.

I think the whole point is to measure shooting skill. It's up to you how you apply your skill in competition with other people of similar skill.

[Classic_jon]

The Classifier is a "basic skills test" It is not meant to "simulate common stages."

I know a bunch of people that can shoot very fast and accurately up close but flat out fall apart at longer ranges or shooting with their off hand. Unless someone purposefully slows down to not go up a classification, the classifier is generally pretty accurate representation of your overall shooting ability.

[chuck s]

A local range recently held a Classifier-Plus match -- the IDPA Classifier plus another stage -- and shooters generally did not classify at their apparent skill-level. For instance, none of the CDP Experts or Masters scored above Sharpshooter, an up-and-coming Sharpshooter who has been beating Experts and Masters scored Sharpshooter too, etc.

It really does seem like the Classifier is its own thing, with an emphasis on long-range shooting, the "weirdness" of limited scoring, and very little lateral movement. Certainly it's a measure of shooting skill, but it doesn't really measure the skills that make a good competitor -- at least not to the same degree as more typically match stages.

If you were to design a Classifier Course of Fire, what would go in it, and would would get left out?

I wonder if the master class and some of the expert guys just tried to go as fast as they could and dropped a lot of points doing so. master class guys do not have to re classify and so the only reason to shoot it is to try and really shoot a low score, since it really is only bragging rights. I shot a 112 ssp recently and that is definitly the best I can do, so if I were to try again anytime soon I would likely speed thing up beyond my capabilities and then the wheels come off

[Blueridge]

The classifier is a bascis skills test and for this purpose it does it's job. match stages ar another animal entirely and have other challenges within them that test other skills.

The classifier is there simply to try and put shooters with similar skill levels competing against one another. No skills test is perfect so there will be some level of inaccuracy.

[M1911]

I do better on the classifier than I do in a match. I believe that I lose time (and accuracy) in transitions and movement. In contrast, the classifier is basically easy -- not much movement and you are generally flat-footed, facing straight on to the targets. The only "hard" part of the classifier is the accuracy required on Stage 3. For me, learning how to shoot Stage 3 has been far easier than being able to handle a field course well.

[astephenson]

The classifier does a good job of giving you a "jumping off point", but I don't put a whole lot of stock in it other than that. Shoot some major matches and take your bumps accordingly.

[speedrrracer]

For me it seems similar in both IDPA and USPSA -- the classifiers are far more static than the actual match stages, where the premium seems to be on movement.

I think the IDPA classifier is pretty good, and focuses on the important things pretty well.

Given the large discrepancy between classifiers and actual match stages wrt movement, I'd say both sports might either issue a clarification "Hey -- you guys are moving around more than we had envisioned, which is fine but we're not changing the classifiers" or they should add more movement to their classifiers, so that there's more consistency between the two.

[lugnut]

I believe the classification system is very reasonable and represents shooters' levels in matches pretty well. Like a previous poster has said though- if a particular match has more emphasis on stages with more movement and/or close targets- the results could be slightly skewed to those skills. However I've never seen a shooter that can handle 20 yards shots well but can't do 7 yard shots. Clearly the opposite is not true. The difference between say an Expert and Master at close shots is not usually that obvious. The tight and long shots are what separates them. Plus a Master level shooter that has some match experience shouldn't be making many mental errors or PEs.

I have seen people get match bumps but could never shoot a classifier at their new level- it does happen, but not too often. For example the ESP Master classifier time is tough so there are often many great ESP Experts that are close. Usually to get a match bump to Master you need to beat some great ESP Expert shooters.

All in all it should be close... pending any grand baggers, sandbaggers or outliers....

[lugnut]

A local range recently held a Classifier-Plus match -- the IDPA Classifier plus another stage -- and shooters generally did not classify at their apparent skill-level. For instance, none of the CDP Experts or Masters scored above Sharpshooter, an up-and-coming Sharpshooter who has been beating Experts and Masters scored Sharpshooter too, etc.

I do find it surprising that a CDP Master can't shoot a SS time... is this a common thing? How do you know gun problems weren't an issue? Were they classified years ago and just don't play the game anymore?

Remember- your current classification is the one you have shot the best in (unless you had a bump). Doesn't mean you can repeat every time.... although a solid Master should be able to repeat fairly frequently IMO.

[jmorris]

I guess you could find folks that have bumped up in classes from wins at sanctioned matches and simply cannot hit an 8" circle at speed from 25 yards; however, if that is the case they are not "real" masters, are they. How about looking at it they other way, next time you MD a match make at least 33% of the shots past 20 yards. Making your stages more closely mirror the classifier.

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

I guess you could find folks that have bumped up in classes from wins at sanctioned matches and simply cannot hit an 8" circle at speed from 25 yards; however, if that is the case they are not "real" masters, are they?

So, the shooter who beats the other Masters in actual competition is the fake Master? And the shooters who performed well on the Classifier are the real Masters?

How about looking at it they other way, next time you MD a match make at least 33% of the shots past 20 yards. Making your stages more closely mirror the classifier.

As you point out, the skills emphasized in the Classifier don't get the same emphasis in actual matches. Which set of skills better fits the spirit of IDPA? Is IDPA about taking long-distance shots a third of the time?

In my opinion, the Classifier is certainly a good test of shooting skill, and better IDPA shooters will do better on it than worse IDPA shooters, as a rule, but it could match up much, much better with both typical matches and the spirit of defensive shooting.

For instance, the Classifier could require draws from concealment. Crazy, I know. It could make all shots either on the move or from cover. Again, crazy idea. It could take the tactical reloads off the clock. It could go unlimited. It could put the different targets at different distances within the same string. Would this make for a less accurate assessment of shooting skill?

Edited May 18, 2012 by Not-So-Mad Matt

[motosapiens]

For instance, the Classifier could require draws from concealment. Crazy, I know. It could make all shots either on the move or from cover. Again, crazy idea. It could take the tactical reloads off the clock. It could go unlimited. It could put the different targets at different distances within the same string. Would this make for a less accurate assessment of shooting skill?

Limited vickers is just to make the scoring easier, so you can shoot multiple strings and then score.

I don't think the changes you suggest would make much difference.

I'm curious what the field stages are typically like in your neck of the woods. Here, out of 7-ish stages in a typical match, we usually have 1 or 2 that are low round count, and pretty close, and we also have a couple that are 18 rounds and include some longer shots, even some longer shots with no-shoots obscuring part of the targets. The people that take lots of points on stage 3 of the classifier also get hammered on the 1/3 of our stages that require accurate shooting. Perhaps that's why I see a pretty strong correlation from classifier to match results in general.

[GForceLizard]

The existing classifer is good. I would not change anything. People have different motivation with the classifier. Not everyone wants to move up in class this way. It's not easy to win or even have enough people to move up at a sanctioned match. Many shooters that would much rather do it with a match bump. The classifier needs to be 100% the same for every shooter everywhere. Shooters that can't shoot a swinger, drop turner, steel plates or a Texas Star very well need not worry. It also does nothing to test your ability to analyze and visualize a stage.

[M1911]

I believe the classification system is very reasonable and represents shooters' levels in matches pretty well. Like a previous poster has said though- if a particular match has more emphasis on stages with more movement and/or close targets- the results could be slightly skewed to those skills.

I disagree. Looking at my performance in matches versus my classification, it isn't slight.

However I've never seen a shooter that can handle 20 yards shots well but can't do 7 yard shots.

A better comparison is static 20 yard shots versus quick transitions and movements at 7 yards. I'm good at the former. I suck at the latter.

At a recent USPSA match, they had a stage which was basically the Bianci mover. While I'm ranked as CDP Expert in IDPA, I'm often beaten by Sharpshooters in a match. But on the Bianci mover, which is no foot movement but requires long distance accuracy against a moving target, I hung right in there with an IDPA Master level shooter. Of course I then fell apart on the field courses in that match...

Edited May 18, 2012 by M1911

[lugnut]

I believe the classification system is very reasonable and represents shooters' levels in matches pretty well. Like a previous poster has said though- if a particular match has more emphasis on stages with more movement and/or close targets- the results could be slightly skewed to those skills.

I disagree. Looking at my performance in matches versus my classification, it isn't slight.

Well... there are outliers like a said. I haven't seen you shoot in a while... what happens during a COF that doesn't cause you problems in the classifier? When I saw you shooting the revo you seemed to be getting pretty good- definitely solid expert level from what I could tell.

Do you get in / out of positions quickly? Do you always have a solid plan and execute it well? Where are you losing time? Are you telling me SS regularly kick your ass??

On the Bianci you can't judge that one stage because it was so different that anything most people have seen in ANY matches.

[hkguy]

I feel that the classifier is a *good* measurement of the basic skills/abilities needed in IDPA. Just like any other standardized test, there will be people who do well on it and people who do poorly. You can design it a 100 different ways and you will still have the same problems as now.

[M1911]

I haven't seen you shoot in a while... what happens during a COF that doesn't cause you problems in the classifier? When I saw you shooting the revo you seemed to be getting pretty good- definitely solid expert level from what I could tell.

Do you get in / out of positions quickly? Do you always have a solid plan and execute it well? Where are you losing time? Are you telling me SS regularly kick your ass??

On the Bianci you can't judge that one stage because it was so different that anything most people have seen in ANY matches.

That Bianci stage was definitely different. But it shows my strength -- long range accuracy from a static position. And that is what most of Stage 3 of the classifier is about.

I generally have a solid plan and usually execute it well. But I believe that I'm slow getting into positions and being ready to shoot. On close "hose 'em down" stages, I either slow down and have a lousy time (but accurate hits) or I go target-focused and have lots of points down. Yes, if you look at the results from recent matches in CDP, there are sharpshooters kicking my butt.

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

I feel that the classifier is a *good* measurement of the basic skills/abilities needed in IDPA. Just like any other standardized test, there will be people who do well on it and people who do poorly. You can design it a 100 different ways and you will still have the same problems as now.

I think we can agree that the Classifier is a good test of shooting skill but not a perfect test of shooting skill -- and no test will be perfect. On the other hand, that does not mean that all possible tests are equally imperfect.

A "better" Classifier -- meaning one that better predicts match performance -- would require a concealment garment, would involve much more movement, especially laterally and getting into and out of positions, would vary distances within a string of fire, and might have fewer long-distance shots from an almost-static position.

Edited May 21, 2012 by Not-So-Mad Matt

[lugnut]

I haven't seen you shoot in a while... what happens during a COF that doesn't cause you problems in the classifier? When I saw you shooting the revo you seemed to be getting pretty good- definitely solid expert level from what I could tell.

Do you get in / out of positions quickly? Do you always have a solid plan and execute it well? Where are you losing time? Are you telling me SS regularly kick your ass??

On the Bianci you can't judge that one stage because it was so different that anything most people have seen in ANY matches.

That Bianci stage was definitely different. But it shows my strength -- long range accuracy from a static position. And that is what most of Stage 3 of the classifier is about.

I generally have a solid plan and usually execute it well. But I believe that I'm slow getting into positions and being ready to shoot. On close "hose 'em down" stages, I either slow down and have a lousy time (but accurate hits) or I go target-focused and have lots of points down. Yes, if you look at the results from recent matches in CDP, there are sharpshooters kicking my butt.

There are two kinds of shooters in general- those that are physically fast and maybe not so accurate and those that very accurate and maybe not so fast. Think of the locals we shoot with- you can probably put them in one of those categories for the most part. Here's the thing- both types can be top shooters without a doubt. All shooters are always looking for the correct balance! Think about MJ for example- he's very accurate but in the past he wasn't so fast. Every time he went fast he' drop points like crazy and would go back to his old ways- slow and accurate. Well... I told him you can't just expect to go fast and expect everything to work in an instant... you need to keep pushing till you get to the point were you can go faster and not drop a boat load of points. Sounds like you might need to do the same. Target focus for iron sights is vastly over rated... I think it was BE himself that said something like it didn't take him any longer to look at his sights as did to look at a target on those close shots. Using your sights on a 20 yard shot is VERY different that using them at 5 yards though.

In a way- the classifier is slightly more biased on points as there really isn't any tricky movements for the most part... and yeah- 1/3 of the shots are 20 yards! But the hell with the classifications though... just find a way to speed things up in general... you already got the accuracy thing which is great! Or, better yet- be a MD and set up a match with long tough shots! You'll kick ass and teach those SSs a good lesson!

The convergence of speed and accuracy is what everyone is striving for... the top shooters have both. It's a never ending battle.

Edited May 21, 2012 by lugnut

[theblacknight]

The classifier is a kiddy version of the Hackathorn Standards.

[sirveyr]

The classifier is a kiddy version of the Hackathorn Standards.

Was this a big secret?

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

The classifier is a kiddy version of the Hackathorn Standards.

Sure, the IDPA Classifier doesn't involve a “Weak Hand Pickup” or “Prone Drill”, but it's not exactly a "kiddy version" of the original.

Edited May 22, 2012 by Not-So-Mad Matt

[M1911]

Or, better yet- be a MD and set up a match with long tough shots! You'll kick ass and teach those SSs a good lesson!

I'm ahead of you there. One of the stages this Saturday is mine. It gives shooters the choice of less running and long, but open shots, or more running which gets them closer, but all they have are headshots around a no-shoot.

[lugnut]

Or, better yet- be a MD and set up a match with long tough shots! You'll kick ass and teach those SSs a good lesson!

I'm ahead of you there. One of the stages this Saturday is mine. It gives shooters the choice of less running and long, but open shots, or more running which gets them closer, but all they have are headshots around a no-shoot.

Sweet.... I'm looking forward to it! Options are always good!