New Classifiers

[k tyler]

Has anyone heard when we are getting a new classifier book? I know anyone who has been shooting for the past.....5 years is getting tired of the same book being used. I was told we were to have a new one in Jan 2003. Well thats come and gone now were are into 2004.

The book has been shot to death. (Not a bad idea, shot the classifier book) There is so much grand bagging or just a lot of repeats that 100% is becoming artifical. Yes I know big matches tell the real story but for those who can not make them, it is nice to compare yourselves to the great ones.

I just hope the new book has some better course design along with some field type courses.

K Tyler

[shred]

I just hope the new book has some better course design along with some field type courses. 

Agreed, though the current book has a few 'field-type' courses, hardly anybody ever runs them because they're such a pain to measure out and set up.

99-27, 99-30, 99-36, 99-38, 99-43, 99-45, 99-52, 99-56, 99-60 all have reasonable amounts of movement in them, though most are box, barrel, barricade or port-limited. Fix up some of that and you might have something.

Note: most of these actually have reasonable HHF's, so pester your local MD to run them (note that most of the "100%'s" are shot on very few classifiers.. check it out.. I bet 99-32 is 50% of them)

[Ron Ankeny]

Coming up with new classifiers is a monumental task because along with the classifier comes a reliable and valid database. As for 100 per cent being "artificial", I disagree. A person still needs to shoot the score. In my last 100 classifiers I have shot a 100 per cent only one time.

[titandriver]

Gotta agree with Shred, there are a number of field course-type classifiers that are rarely used. But rather than "pester" your MD to set 'em up, volunteer to do it yourself at the next match. Not only will the MD be grateful but so will all the other shooters who are tired of shooting the same dozen classifiers over & over again.

[Flexmoney]

Rich...great point!

I think I read...somewhere...that the "new classifiers' might ahve got put on hold. With all the work getting the new rule book updated and such, there wasn't much manpower left over to tweak the classifiers.

Can anybody verify that?

[shred]

Around here, pestering the MD to run something pretty much means you just volunteered to do it..

[TRNinTX]

I would love to run more classifiers with movement, however we are range limited to some extent. Also if you have never been involved with setting up a classifier then you need to show up and see what is involved. It sometimes takes us the better part of an hour just to get some of the more involved classifiers set up.

Not only is there the measuring, but also some of the target arrays are really tough to get right. Factor in that most MD's get very little help in setting a four or five stage match up and you can see why you get some of the same ones over and over. Shooters like big field courses with lots of walls etc. and those also take a long time to set up. We have spent six to seven hours the day before a match and then all day the day of the match.

I would love for someone to volunteer to pick a classifier and then set it up every month.

[shred]

Well, in the spirit of improvement, what would speed up classifier setup, especally the complicated ones?

In my experience, it's mostly measuring everything out, including doing the math to figure out what goes where. Painting custom hard-cover and setting up the arrays just right is probably next in line.

Could they be drawn differently in order to make measurement and layout easier? I'm thinking it would be cool if you could anchor one end of a long tape measure at the center of the start box, then lay down a giant protractor and walk around in a semicircle, dropping target stands at the appropriate angles and distances.

A somewhat simpler-to-implement suggestion-- map everything to the center of the target stands, and provide more dimensions on the plots so we don't have to subtract in our heads on a 40 degree morning.

[Jake Di Vita]

How about using a range finder?

[hoser]

Hi Guys,

A new classifier book is, indeed, in the works. John Amidon has been working very hard to put it together. One problem in making the classifier book public has been the new USPSA rules coming out shortly. The USPSA BOD has been working on the new IPSC rules and I think we are about finished. Then John has to review the new rules and the new classifiers to ensure they follow the rules.

In addition to that, NROI (of which John is the Director) has to come up with new teaching materials and tests for the new rules. With all of this going on, I would ask that we all be a little bit patient, the new classifier book will arrive, albeit not as soon as all of us like.

Arnie

[TRNinTX]

Arnie,

Will the new classifers be shot with the Classic targets also? It seems that if the Classic is an "official" USPSA target that the classifiers would be good on those also, which is currently not the case.

[hoser]

I rather doubt that the new classifiers will have classic targets. USPSA does not have any hit factors using classic targets. But, take this for what it is worth, this is just my opinion, I have not yet seen what courses will be in the new book. Perhaps I will see the new book/courses at the NROI Instructor's Conference in March.

Arnie

[ErikW]

Eh? USPSA shouldn't have any hit factors for the new classifiers with any targets... they are new classifiers. Unless USPSA already had some GMs shoot them?

[hoser]

Eric,

As I said, I have not seen the new courses, but the a piece of the plan was to use some "suitable" courses that had been shot in major matches, thus allowing high hit factors to be developed if numerous GMs shot the course. Remember, a little followed guideline for tournament matches stated that two courses in the tournament should be useable as classifiers. So, by that logic, if there was a course in a major match that was suitable for a classifier that used classic targets and was shot by "a lot" of GMs, it *could* be in the new book.

Arnie

[Tom Freeman]

My .02 worth would be to label classifiers as 99-XXa and 99-XXb.

The "a" classifier would be with metric targets and the "b" classifier could be the classic target version.

Still two sets of hit factors, but since we are starting over anyway...

I have been the MD for three Tournaments since 2001 and I can think of 30 stages, all field courses that were submitted. Seven of them were designed and used with classics. In hindsight, I dont think many of them would have made good classifiers, but they were fun.

[Ron Ankeny]

Arnie:

Thanks for answering before I asked...I was wondering how the initial high hit factors would be established.

[shred]

I know I haven't seen many really classifier-worthy stages in the Area matches I've been to lately, but there may be a few.

I would hazard a guess that USPSA could probably just ask the top 10 or so shooters to sit down and look at some stages on paper, and they'd probably be able to give an answer very close to what they could shoot it in. Average 'em up, drop a few % for us mortals, and on to the next one.

And this time, actually change the HHF's when appropriate, please.

[ErikW]

OIC, that makes sense. What's really cool about that is the hit factors are real-world, put up or shut up, match stage scores; there's no wondering how many times the GM pool shot them for USPSA to come up with the initial average high hit factor.

Remember, a little followed guideline for tournament matches stated that two courses in the tournament should be useable as classifiers.

I do remember, as I'm preparing a tournament. I'd love for you to chime in on my tournament requirements topic.

[hoser]

Erik, I didn't see much to chime in on! As far as stage procedures go, except for classifiers, I am very much a firm believer in the course description that states, Upon the start signal engage T1 - Txx and PP1 - PPxx as them become visible.

Good luck with your match!

Arnie