Classification a reflection of results?

[Nimitz]

I know the topic of whether classifers are a realistic measure of a shooter's skill has been debated a lot but I have a slightly different question. Of the current top 5-10 USPSA competitive shooters out there currently (the super squad folks at big matches), are any of them not GMs? The reason I ask is that if the folks currently winning & finishing high in major matches are all GMs then it would seem that the classifyer system is a valid indicator of the best shooters in this sport but if not then maybe there is something to the argument that classifiers don't highlight all the skills required to win matches. So, how much correlation is there?

[Joe4d]

the argument could go the other way just as easy. Probably lots of GM's that are not competititve at Area and national matches.

[DonovanM]

See for yourself...

http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-display-match-results-detail.php?indx=2835

http://www.uspsa.org/uspsa-display-match-results-detail.php?indx=2805

[pjb45]

Try Glenn Shelby, Steve Soufe and John Mourow (sorry for the spelling)

These guys always place high.

As my friend from New Jersey would say, "It is what it is", the classifier measures the fundamentals of shooting. The evolution of field courses, walls, and props has enhanced the requirements to succeed in USPSA.

Standardized testing, USPSA, SAT, ACT, NFL Combine Camps, do not always indicate who wins, it just measures specific skills that among other variables make for excellence.

Edited March 11, 2012 by pjb45

[Skydiver]

If somebody doesn't go to any classifier matches and deliberately sandbags their classifier stages, they can get into the top slots of major matches. But that won't last long, because the classifier system also automatically promotes these individuals if they do well in a match that has enough GM's competing in the same match. Eventually, they will be classed as GM's, but if you just base them on their submitted raw classifier scores, you would think differently. They obviously, though, have what it takes to be scoring in those high levels.

Although there maybe some flaws in the classification system, I think that it's pretty good at it's intended purpose of having people competing among others of their own skill level.

[Supermoto]

The classification system would be better if it took the best 6 of the last 8, not dropping anything else

[Ben Stoeger]

I would say that GM's have a tendancy to be really good, D class tend to not be very good, and B class tend to be somewhere in the middle. The classification system is largely a good indicator of someone's skill level.

[blaster113]

the classification system while not perfect is a pretty accurate indicator of ability

[Chills1994]

The classification system would be better if it took the best 6 of the last 8, not dropping anything else the high hit factors were actually published and there was a records page to click on for say CM 99-13, I could click on, and see the top 5 limited guys who shot the best hit factor on it.

FTFY.

[Chills1994]

I know the topic of whether classifers are a realistic measure of a shooter's skill has been debated a lot but I have a slightly different question. Of the current top 5-10 USPSA competitive shooters out there currently (the super squad folks at big matches), are any of them not GMs? The reason I ask is that if the folks currently winning & finishing high in major matches are all GMs then it would seem that the classifyer system is a valid indicator of the best shooters in this sport but if not then maybe there is something to the argument that classifiers don't highlight all the skills required to win matches. So, how much correlation is there?

Let's see....

I joined USPSA back in 2007....have a 58,500 something member number.

With the question(s) you are asking, the way you are asking them...well...that's where I was about 2 years ago.

it really doesn't do you any good to mull over such things. just shoot your own game. everything else is a mental diversion from what you need to do to shoot to the utmost of your potential at a major match.

I gave my two cents in the post above about how to make the classifier/classification system better...which is to make it more transparent...after all, we all are literally paying for it every match we go to. I don't know about you guys, but I'd like a better look at what I am buying into.

Edited March 12, 2012 by Chills1994

[sperman]

I don't think the problem lies with the GM shooters. I think its more with the A,B,C shooters. It's too easy for guys to sandbag or avoid classifiers altogether.

[Steve Anderson]

It is MUCH easier to make GM than it is to compete with the super squad.

The difference is consistency.

Anyone who trains enough will eventually make GM...that's just a fact.

(And let's please not go down the road of natural talent or superhuman ability... The a-zone of a barn was safe from me when I started)

But to compete against the best in the world: That's a whole new ballgame.

Consistency... and it's largely mental. You're talking about 20 or so guys at nationals (maybe more) who are all within fractions of a second in raw ability with a pistol:

a. draws (not super critical)

b. reloads (at this level it's easy as breathing)

c. setups (The main difference between slow runs and fast runs)

d. transitions (another biggie)

Who wins?

The guy who gets the most points in the least amount of time.

And let's not forget desire. How bad he wants it is evidenced by what he does every single day...

[pjb45]

Steve really nailed it!

Look at Steve's book(s). I remember his phrase, "whittling a toothpick with a chain saw!" He offered 50 ways to knock a little time off each way which amounted to major savings in overall time.

Classifiers are mostly draws and reloads oriented. They are usually one stage in a match. There are a lot of hero to zero efforts which can inflate a shooters real level.

A major match is two-three day affair that can hit almost every aspect, draws, reloads, movement, setup, transitions. The mental toughness to perform at a high level stage after stage is very different than a one stage classifier.

I remember TGO giving advice to another GM at Nationals in Missoula. It was pretty much, 'why are you going there, you can stop here and see everything you need to see, now you are set up for moving to the next area."

IMO the reason why TGO with two bad knees was so competitive was simply he went to only where he needed to go and was ready to shoot when he got there.

With two good knees his is incredible.

[waktasz]

I'm currently somewhere around 70% according to the classifiers. This past year I have been practicing more than any previous year so I'm making good gains. Last year at Area 8 I finished about 65% of Travis, who crushed the field and won all but a few of the stages. I did have one stage where I fell on my face and lost a lot of time, so I'd say the system is pretty accurate.

[beltjones]

To answer the original question, a few of the guys at the top of the leaderboard are sometimes not GMs.

However, they are virtually always GMs in another division or they are AMU guys who train a lot but don't shoot classifiers.

[Skydiver]

The classification system would be better if it took the best 6 of the last 8, not dropping anything else the high hit factors were actually published and there was a records page to click on for say CM 99-13, I could click on, and see the top 5 limited guys who shot the best hit factor on it.

FTFY.

Actually, I managed to get permission from Dave Thomas to expose the data the shows the HHF on a per classifier basis. I was going to show the data as another set of pages on http://combinedresults.info .

I've put the project on the shelf because of the following reasons:

- More often than not, the top 5 HHF will be a number that is close to 100%. This doesn't really make for interesting data.

- Even if I broke out the top 5 HHF by classifier and by division, the numbers will still be uninteresting because of the clustering of the data for HHF. All it will show is the relative distance between the divisions.

- The slightly more interesting data is the top 5 HHF by classifier, by division, and by class. This shows how most people in your division and class are doing with a particular classifier. The issue I have is how to deal with somebody who has gone through the process of requesting a class downgrade. For example, a M class shooter requests and gets approved to move down to C. The way the current data is stored, that M class score will still be there for that classifier even if I filter by C class shooters.

If people still think it maybe interesting to see HHF broken down by classifier, by division, and by class, and don't mind the caveat that the data maybe suspect, follow up on this thread, or PM me. I may pick the project back up with enough encouragement.

[Nimitz]

Donovan - thx, your link certainly answers my question pretty conclusively. I'm not interested in those who are trying to sandbag classifiers so that at a big match they are only competing against those who are worse shooters than they are. I assume the best shooters always try to shoot their best at every match they go to. I'm still very new to all this o i don't understand why someone would want to avoid shooting classifiers. I for one would be interested to see data showing HHF by classifier & division. It would give me some measurable goal to work against

[Chills1994]

The classification system would be better if it took the best 6 of the last 8, not dropping anything else the high hit factors were actually published and there was a records page to click on for say CM 99-13, I could click on, and see the top 5 limited guys who shot the best hit factor on it.

FTFY.

Actually, I managed to get permission from Dave Thomas to expose the data the shows the HHF on a per classifier basis. I was going to show the data as another set of pages on http://combinedresults.info .

I've put the project on the shelf because of the following reasons:

- More often than not, the top 5 HHF will be a number that is close to 100%. This doesn't really make for interesting data.

- Even if I broke out the top 5 HHF by classifier and by division, the numbers will still be uninteresting because of the clustering of the data for HHF. All it will show is the relative distance between the divisions.

- The slightly more interesting data is the top 5 HHF by classifier, by division, and by class. This shows how most people in your division and class are doing with a particular classifier. The issue I have is how to deal with somebody who has gone through the process of requesting a class downgrade. For example, a M class shooter requests and gets approved to move down to C. The way the current data is stored, that M class score will still be there for that classifier even if I filter by C class shooters.

If people still think it maybe interesting to see HHF broken down by classifier, by division, and by class, and don't mind the caveat that the data maybe suspect, follow up on this thread, or PM me. I may pick the project back up with enough encouragement.

Cool!

Just as a side note, I could have sworn at one point "shred" (aka Roy Steadman) had started a thread about the classification system. In this particular thread, he had included histograms of some classifier stage results. It appeared that some classifiers were easy, and you could get overclassified by just taking it easy shooting them.

Other classifiers appeared that even if you went pedal to the metal on them, you would always be underclassified.

[cnote]

I for one would be interested to see data showing HHF by classifier & division. It would give me some measurable goal

+1 , i would like to see top 5 by division and class, not just comparing my results with the GM's

[bbbean]

Just as a side note, I could have sworn at one point "shred" (aka Roy Steadman) had started a thread about the classification system. In this particular thread, he had included histograms of some classifier stage results. It appeared that some classifiers were easy, and you could get overclassified by just taking it easy shooting them.

Other classifiers appeared that even if you went pedal to the metal on them, you would always be underclassified.

You can do a fair job of knowing how "easy" a classifier is by simply looking at the stage design. There's only so fast even the fastest shooters can shoot a very short speed shoot, so it's a lot easier for an up and coming shooter to get closer to the HHF. On the other hand, a longer classifier, one that requires movement, or one that requires more precision will rely more heavily on the skills the best shooters have developed, and even good shooters may find themselves sucking wind compared to the HHF.

Think of it this way - I could set up two races between myself and <insert your favorite Olympic track star here>. If the race is very short (say 7 yards), my time is going to be relatively close to the Olympic standard. As the race gets longer (say 100+ yards), my time is going to be dramatically longer than the Olympians, because there was simply more time for the differences in our speed to come into play.

So I think the role of a good MD is to mix classifiers up so they aren't all speed shoots (which would tend to let shooters get classified higher) or all long distance weak hand stages (which would tend to produce lower classifications). That way, 8 classifiers can represent a range of skills and sand/grandbagging will be minimized.

BB