38supPat Posted October 10, 2001 Share Posted October 10, 2001 Hfx is a new scoring program/method being pushed by IPSC...briefly looking it over it looks extremelt complicated. To quote from an ipsc letter promoting it, it uses a stage/score "modifier" to balance the weight of difficulty of stages and uses "an advanced statistical averaging method than ensures 100% stability" The formulas given are: Score=Hit Factor x minimum number or rounds x stage modifier and: Stage modifier = average match hit factor / average stage hit factor I have to read it in more detail but I believe all the info for it is available on the IPSC website. To me it looks overly complicated compared to what we use now and I think there is a flaw in the logic but I can't find it. Can the others on this site look it over and 'splain it to me...particularily Detlef who is the resident math genius you might be better suited to figure it out than me. Pat Look it up on the sidebar of the IPSC website mainpage it is marked hfx (Edited by Pat Harrison at 3:59 pm on Oct. 10, 2001) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Dunlop Posted October 11, 2001 Share Posted October 11, 2001 Pat there was some pretty lively discussion on the IPSC Australia Forums recently. I haven't got my head around it yet, but the concensus among those that had was very negative. P.D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted October 11, 2001 Share Posted October 11, 2001 Pat: I spent quite a bit of time looking at HFx and thinking about it. To be honest, I have some reservations regarding the stage modifier. Now, I am not whiz kid in stats, but I have completed some pretty major course work in statistical analysis as it relates to evaluation. In my view, scoring competitiors is a form of evaluation. In a nutshell, out is the world of statistics, one would be highly suspect of the validity and reliability of the modifier unless you had at least 30 shooters in the distribution who comprised a normal population. That is, the shooters would need to more or less form a bell shaped curve based upon ability level or the data could be skewed. I think the goal is to balance stage points so one stage doesn't throw the total match points off and maybe the modifier will do just that. OTOH, if the match suffers from poor stage design, then juggling numbers ain't gonna fix it. My 2 cents worth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted October 11, 2001 Author Share Posted October 11, 2001 My thought are that it most likely sucks. I know the brothers that designed it and while they are brilliant, they tend to over think things and make an easy solution so complicated you forget the question At the moment I don't see an upside to it. It makes scoring a match in your head impossible and tries to fix noexistent probs. The stages already weigh themselves. A speed shoot of 8 round only is worth 40 points while a field course is worth 100 or more. If you do well on the larger course you deserve more points. It seems to me that it is geared to award points on a grade curve. The worse the field does the farther down it pulls the top guys while bringing up the points of the bottom shooters, regardless of how they shot. Maybe I'm wrong and don't get it but the existing system seems to work fine, why change for the sake of change? Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Singlestack Posted October 11, 2001 Share Posted October 11, 2001 Pat, Ever seen an "A" class shooter that was so big he/she could not run or bend over to shoot though a port? Maby they are trying to make the sport more "PC" so everyone can win? I'm with you. It is not broken so don't fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted October 11, 2001 Author Share Posted October 11, 2001 I've seen it all, from friends like Terry O'Hara who are definitly too big for any kind of ports let alone getting up from awkward positions (but give him a shotgun and watch out!) To people like Lisa Munson who can be asked at a match to shoot over a 4 foot wall that they can barely see over nevermind get the gun in there Yeah sometimes its not fair..but that is up to the course designer and construction crew. The two characters that dreamed up this program also set up our provincials, and while it was a good match they had several locations where you had to shoot the target, which was on the ground, over a wall that had to be at least 4 1/2' tall, a stretch even for me. But the Lipowski brothers are both between 6 1/2' + tall. To them it didn't seem like a big deal, and I'm sure to a mathemetition this formula might make sense too, but to the average Joe who will be working stats at a match, it will require going back to university for a degree in IPSC scoring Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted October 11, 2001 Share Posted October 11, 2001 Rob Boudrie did a sample match and showed without doubt just what the flaws are in this scoring system. He posted it to his webpage at http://www.boudrie.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted October 11, 2001 Share Posted October 11, 2001 Not that this is really on the topic, but we used to score matches, before the IPSC colonization - each stage was given an equal percentage of the overall match. Shoot 4 stages, each is worth 25%. I know the current trend is far away from that - "shoot more shots=worth more points." Think about it, imagine each stage as an individual stand alone test. "Pass or fail." It made 6 shot speed shoots a hole different ball game. If you beat someone by .3 of a second, it was not much different than coming out ahead by 2 or 3 seconds on a field course. Little things, like skill, mattered. I dug it. I was sad when they introduced the new/current scoring system. I got used to it, but actually I'm not sure that I ever really liked the current scoring system at all. One more point. Consider that at the "upper big dog level," if you drop a few "extra" points on a 6 or 8 shot speed shoot, like shoot a D, at a national level competition, you will not finish well on that stage. Because typically, when you remove all the variables besides the actual shooting, the top dogs shoot the same times. The only thing left is score. Now imagine a field course is really just speed shoots, strung together. Then it becomes apparent that the reason points are not (don't seem) so important on field courses is that there are just more points to accumulate over a longer period of time. The "necessity" of shooting points is hidden by the fact that a stage, consisting of 24 shots rather than 8, is three times more "valuable." If that didn't make any sense, I'll just say this - I can tell you for certain that if you shot field courses using the same mentality the top dogs use to shoot speed shoots, you'd be the big winner (because you'd know something most don't). be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted October 11, 2001 Share Posted October 11, 2001 Brian, maybe this belongs to a separate thread, but just what *mentality* do the big dogs use on speed shoots?When I still shot in Europe, most of what we shot were speed shoots, and my field course performance sucked (mostly because I rarely had to move and just couldn't do it quickly and smoothly). Now I've learned what it takes to shoot a field course to my capability but.... now my speed shoots suck! I am trembling before a 6-round course! Nowhere to move? I am scared to death! So what's a good speed shoot mentality? As opposed to a field course mentality....Remember you brought that up... --Detlef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted October 11, 2001 Share Posted October 11, 2001 Pat: I have been looking at this from a stats point of view and I missed the most obvious flaw. With HFx my performance is measured in part based upon the performance of the rest of the field. Since when should any input go into my score other than what I earn myself? That alone makes the method suspect. Do you agree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted October 11, 2001 Share Posted October 11, 2001 but Ron, that is ultimately the case in the current Comstock scoring, too. Not for every individual stage, but for the match. Eventually you enter these competitions to measure against others, so I think it's o.k. for other's performance to enter your score. But HFx has so many other flaws that it's hard to imagine what it took to convince the majoity of the RDs at the World Assembly to pass it. Maybe the German beer, in large quantities??? --Detlef Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted October 11, 2001 Author Share Posted October 11, 2001 Is it passed or experimental? I like being measured against the winner of each stage, but this seems to score on a grade curve, your score is based on how EVERYONE did on that stage...if the majority blew it, so do you. Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted October 11, 2001 Share Posted October 11, 2001 it's passed as *optional*. I.e. you can organize a Level 3 match that uses HFx. --D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted October 11, 2001 Author Share Posted October 11, 2001 but why would you...? Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detlef Posted October 11, 2001 Share Posted October 11, 2001 more beer??? --D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
38supPat Posted October 11, 2001 Author Share Posted October 11, 2001 Hehe...more beer is good but if my head is already spinning from trying to score the match...what do I need it for ? Pat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Grube Posted October 12, 2001 Share Posted October 12, 2001 Pat, We're talking beer, it is like guns, need has nothing to do with it, more is just always better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted October 12, 2001 Share Posted October 12, 2001 Don't forget CARS Chriss... the more Cars, Beer and Guns the better :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Grube Posted October 12, 2001 Share Posted October 12, 2001 I guess the same could be said about women, but that would be sexist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted October 12, 2001 Share Posted October 12, 2001 Bad Chriss! Very Bad! Yup - that's definitely sexist :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Ankeny Posted October 12, 2001 Share Posted October 12, 2001 Detlef: I certainley agree that in end shooters are compared. Heck, that's what classifications are all about. Maybe I just don't understand how HFx works. As it is now, I take my score divided by the time and that's the HF. I earn it and I own it. But doesn't HFx then enter the modifier? It looks to me like my score is determined by factors other than my own shooting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chriss Grube Posted October 12, 2001 Share Posted October 12, 2001 I think I should be spanked for that! Oh damn I gave up all the fun stuff when I said "I do" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nik Habicht Posted October 12, 2001 Share Posted October 12, 2001 Quote: from Shooter Grrl on 7:10 pm on Oct. 11, 2001 Don't forget CARS Chriss... the more Cars, Beer and Guns the better :-) Shooter Grrl: Make sure you remind your husband often that he is a LUCKY man......... (Edited by Nik Habicht at 8:28 pm on Oct. 11, 2001) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shooter Grrl Posted October 12, 2001 Share Posted October 12, 2001 Ohh believe me Nik - I DO tell him, and often that I'm "The Bestest Wife in the World". And he even sometimes agrees :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
benos Posted October 12, 2001 Share Posted October 12, 2001 man, I had to cycle through 3 pages just to answer the nucleous's question! I know you're looking for "more" than this, but the "mentality" is - shoot points - quickly. I know what you're saying about going from being a stand-and-shoot man to a field course man. I made the same transition. It's like I almost have to "remember" - hey, this is what I'm good at! And then don't look back... be Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now