Eliminate divisions from classification system?

[sperman]

Why are shooters classified by division? Are the skills to make GM (or any classification) in Limited all that different from the skills to make GM in Production? Why not just have 1 classification?

This question is prompted by a couple of things: 1. The recent discussions on sand-bagging. 2. Having just shot the SS Nationals, where the majority of shooters are ranked higher in another division than they are in SS.

[Chris Keen]

Sure ..... Why not let Open shooters compete on an equal basis?

[Flexmoney]

Why are shooters classified by division? Are the skills to make GM (or any classification) in Limited all that different from the skills to make GM in Production? Why not just have 1 classification?

This question is prompted by a couple of things: 1. The recent discussions on sand-bagging. 2. Having just shot the SS Nationals, where the majority of shooters are ranked higher in another division than they are in SS.

As for Q2...they are never ranked more than one classification lower than their highest rank. Though...some haven't yet shot enough to be ranked in all divisions.

For Q1... without a whole'nuther sandbagging fest... do you think it would help if we didn't have the 'one level lower' thing?

But, directly...yes, gear in one division is certainly different enough that you really can't compare scores from Production to Open (assuming Open had the HHF).

[Chris Keen]

But, directly...yes, gear in one division is certainly different enough that you really can't compare scores from Production to Open (assuming Open had the HHF).

..... or Revolver, on say a 7 or 8 round classifier.

[JFlowers]

Scott,

That would require some Classifiers to be rewritten or trashed. Otherwise the classification would not be an honest comparison of skills since the division would effect the score.

One area would be that they would have to be re-written to be six round neutral. Otherwise the score between a Revo shooter and anyone else would not be honest since the Revo shooter was forced to do a reload. Sure, some people like Jerry would still be able to rise to the top but for the rest of us mere mortals....

As for item #2, some of that could be because of artificially created HHF. If I recall, some Classifiers had their HHF just created based on an Open or Limited score. This creates HHF that are not always honest. There is one classifier we shot recently at one of the local clubs that for REVO would require a draw, a reload, and all As in a time under 4 secs

[Graham Smith]

Having just shot the SS Nationals, where the majority of shooters are ranked higher in another division than they are in SS.

Are you proposing that Bill "The Glockman" Jones, who is an A class Production shooter and only shoots Revolver in one match a year should be ranked as a A for everything? That's just not logical.

[Chuck Anderson]

I'm a Production GM. I am not a Revolver GM. I'm technically a Revolver M, but it's like 50ish% and with the amount of time I put in with Revolver, 50% is about where I finish. I'm also an 80% Open M. That's also about right for how well I shoot an Open gun. Just don't spend the time with it. I'm certainly not a GM with an Open gun. I'm okay with the current method of one below though. Some of the skills translate Division to Division, stage breakdown, movement etc. But the challenges in each Division really are different. The accuracy requirements in Production and Revolver are different than in Open. The pure movement speed needed in Open is different than revolver. In Revo it's more important to reload while moving than to just flat out haul butt from position to position.

[sperman]

I am NOT proposing that the high hit factor on any given classifier be the same for all divisions. Your score on the classifier would be based on the division you shoot. BUT your overall classification would be based on all of your classifier scores.

I concede the point that Open and Revolver are fairly unique (I've never shot eithr of them in competition.) But is there that much difference between Limited, L10, Production and SS?

[Flexmoney]

But is there that much difference between Limited, L10, Production and SS?

Ha...depends on who you ask! (actually, there ought to be enough info in the database to apply some statistics to it...at some point)

Other than Limited not having to reload (think Times Two)... You are looking at race holsters and magwells being the difference. I don't count Major or Minor...as I think the HHF will be set with nearly all Alpha hits in any case.

Is the magwell important? Well, not really, as a top HHF run will be done with a reload that gets nailed.

The production type holsters do give up a tick or two, in my opinion.

[moverfive]

Generally speaking, I think this question about all divisions being classed similarly makes perfect sense. But when you really dig deeper, I think the current methodology of 'one class lower' is more appropriate given the real differences in the divisions.

Granted no one makes M or GM by being slow and inaccurate and thus the base skill sets that allowed you to make M/GM will definitely transfer to any other division. But each division has their own unique skill sets that must be mastered in order to make M/GM, much less to even have a chance at being competitive. For example, if you cannot reload a revolver, forget it! As I joke, I am awesome with a revolver for the first six shots......after that, put the timer down, grab a drink, read War and Peace, because you now have a lot of time on your hands before I start shooting again. Granted I only shoot revolver once a year at Sam's Charity Match in Memphis.......but after a few years, I have only managed to shoot around 50% and have yet to beat one specific Production C-class shooter (and I am a GM in Limited in Open).

And when the conversation keeps coming back to sandbagging or the classification not properly keeping up with a shooter......remember, after shooting one major match with sufficient competition, they will get bumped if they are truly shooting at a higher classification. So that shooter only gets one shot at using their lower classification for any gain.

[BillD]

Having just shot the SS Nationals, where the majority of shooters are ranked higher in another division than they are in SS.

Are you proposing that Bill "The Glockman" Jones, who is an A class Production shooter and only shoots Revolver in one match a year should be ranked as a A for everything? That's just not logical.

IMO, if a person can achieve A class (or any class) then yes, they should be classed the same across all divisions. If you shoot a limited/SS/prod gun at whatever class, you have proven you can handle a gun, you can do the same in revo, with work. And, if that's not possible or you really haven't put in the work with revo, you'll be in the same boat as most people.

Otherwise, it's institutionalized sandbagging.

There are shooters who hold that Limited 10 class one class behind everything else so they can win a plaque. I think that sucks. Then you end up with high masters winning A class in a major. It happens most every major in one division or another.

YMMV

Edited May 10, 2012 by BillD

[motosapiens]

I think if we stopped giving out special-olympics medals and prizes to class 'winners', this would be a non-issue.

I just don't understand why it's cool to beat all the other guys that aren't very good. I personally get a lot more satisfaction out of seeing that 30% start getting towards 40%, so I ignore the classes and just focus on the division overall.

[Chills1994]

we could just get rid of the classification system entirely.

[motosapiens]

we could just get rid of the classification system entirely.

That wouldn't bother me, but as my wife is fond of telling me, no one cares what I think, and if they do care, they disagree anyway.....

Classes make sense to me in some athletic pursuits. For example, in sports with head-to-head competition (tennis, team sports, etc...) no one wants to see or participate in a match that has a dramatic mismatch in skill level.

Another reason to separate skills is due to safety. You see this in bicycle and motorized racing, where mixing riders of vastly different skill levels can be unsafe for everyone. Also not everyone has the skill or endurance to complete the same courses, so beginner classes often run a shorter course, or one with fewer technical difficulties.

However, shooting is more like distance running. We all do the same course, and we are all competing at large against everyone, so the only real reason to have classes in shooting seems to be so we can give out more prizes and plaques and raise people's self-esteem. Distance running does this by breaking up into enough age groups that you can 'win' the 31.75 year age group, lol.

Fortunately, the current class structure has no real effect on me, so other than stirring the pot with posts like this, I'm free to completely ignore it.

[HoMiE]

Are you suggestion that USPSA go to a Pro-Am type match system? No division, just straight-up run what you brung? You can compete for cash classified as Pro, or go for the nice shiny ribbons in amateur and random prize table drawings? Unless you spend some time and get classified in a particular division, your other division classifications scores will always be lower if not unclassified. I think the classification just gives you a way to track progress. Some shoot for fun and making it to B class and being high B is a big achievement. The 1-level below your highest seems to be a fair way to do it.

[Jim Norman]

Actually the class system works to keep the sport alive. We have in many clubs very heated competitions for High C in Production (an example). A few years back at one of our local clubs there were a number of C-Production shooters. They were all about the same level of competence and the race for High C each match was more important to them than winning overall. Yes, they could have competed against each other anyway, but the classification system made it more or less an official competition. They didn't choose who was in the group, their skills placed them there. Taking this away might have a very negative effect on the participation in our sport. It is much better to be able to say you were High C then to say you were 75th out of 145. Think of the classification system as rungs on a ladder.

As for sandbagging, true, there are a few, but they have to do well enough that a large match to win and when they do, they get bumped. At the local level they might make it for a while, but sooner or later it catches up with them

[motosapiens]

It is much better to be able to say you were High C then to say you were 75th out of 145.

This is the part I disagree with and don't really understand. I think bragging about being High C would be pretty embarassing to me. I'd feel MUCH better about saying I was 75th out of 145 when 6 months ago I was 100th out of 145.

But I understand many people agree with your thinking and would stop competing if they didn't get their dose of 'everyone is a winner'. That doesn't bother me. I just mock them.

I look for shooters who are typically doing a little better than me (regardless of division), and focus my efforts on catching them and improving, and moving to the next class.

Edited May 10, 2012 by motosapiens

[Poppa Bear]

A lot of the sandbagging can be alleviated by how the classifier is shot. Make that classifier part of a bigger match and if the shooter wants to place well in the match they need to place well in the classifier. I will not really worry about it until I start to hit a high B.

I am at a low B in Limited and a middle C in Prod and SS because I do not shoot it a lot. I have a comfort factor in my current gun and moving to a SS or Production rig changes the feel enough to throw off the timing.

[Sean Gaines]

I have always disagreed witht the classification system the we have today. The main issue is sandbagging, if you can come up with a solution to the sandbagging, then you will be on to something. Another thing that I am not fond of is, people(foreigners) overseas comming over with B class ratings, and they are a master or GM level shooter taking the trophies/prizes away from the shooter who is a legit B class shooter.

Maybe shooters can nominate a shooter to be promoted to a higher class, and give examples at major matches where they shot a "M" class score against enough "GM's" and the board can move them to the appropriate class, or not. I know we have something to that effect already, but it would be nice if the uspsa was user freindly to communicate with the powers that be. Were shooters could send emails to the powers that be, and say hey, this guy is shooting at a higher level than he is ranked, and let the board make the decision based on major match performance.

Here is one solution: I am just throwing spaghetti on the wall to see if it sticks. lol

I am sure that there are a few shooters in the country that shoot classifiers consistantly over the 100% mark, ex: Sevigny, Max, Eusebio, Tilley, Leatham, vogel, Blake etc. etc. Call those guys the key shooters, now if one of those key shooters shoots any match, beside local, and a person who is ranked at a B class level shoots 85% of one of the key shooters in that match, then he automatically gets bumped to Master. Under the current classification, I am around 91%(Master), If I shot 85% of Blake, I would say that i had a great match. The sandbagging is done at the local level, so they can win at the major match level. so in essence a shooter can get classified at the local level, but it doesn't mean anything until they shoot their first major with a key shooter. when they shoot that match against a key shooter then their classification will be adjusted accordingly.

What would be wrong with this system of classification?

[BillD]

Actually the class system works to keep the sport alive. We have in many clubs very heated competitions for High C in Production (an example). A few years back at one of our local clubs there were a number of C-Production shooters. They were all about the same level of competence and the race for High C each match was more important to them than winning overall. Yes, they could have competed against each other anyway, but the classification system made it more or less an official competition. They didn't choose who was in the group, their skills placed them there. Taking this away might have a very negative effect on the participation in our sport. It is much better to be able to say you were High C then to say you were 75th out of 145. Think of the classification system as rungs on a ladder.

As for sandbagging, true, there are a few, but they have to do well enough that a large match to win and when they do, they get bumped. At the local level they might make it for a while, but sooner or later it catches up with them

I know a guy that tore up prize tables for years winning majors in C class. And it took years for USPSA to catch on. They finally moved him to Master. From C to Master...

How's that for sandbagging?

[Corey]

Some major matches are "classifier matches" if enough GMs shoot it AND if they shoot their appropriate talent level. I think more majors, not just level IIIs, should do this. We've established that people sandbag to win a prize at a major. If we have that major be a classification match as well, then at least that shooter is done sandbagging at one event rather than a whole season.

I dont like the idea of no divisions tho. Im a B in SS/L10/Lim right now but a terribly low C in revo and have never shot Open before. If i buy a brand new open gun, Id expect some growing pains for awhile and don't think it'd be fair to throw me into B class because I shoot iron sighted guns to that level. Am I capable of competing there or higher with some practice and dedication? Probably. And if so, my classifier scores and major match performance (maybe) will move me there.

Unless we move to a system where there are NO CLASSES and everyone shoots for an overall win and prize tables simply go in order of finish, there will always be sandbagging to some level. No two ways around it.

[JFlowers]

BillD,

That's a weakness in the current system. I think changing it to "ALL majors with at least 1 GM or 3 M in the Division" rather than "A Major with 3 GMs in the Division may choose to" would resolve that issue. Even just changing it from "May Choose to All" would help.

[motosapiens]

I know a guy that tore up prize tables for years winning majors in C class. And it took years for USPSA to catch on. They finally moved him to Master. From C to Master...

How's that for sandbagging?

Solution: Eliminate prizes for classes. Raffle them off so that sandbaggers can still brag about getting 'high D', but the people who are trying to improve their classification as fast as they can might also win something. You could still have a plague or something for High D, so their parents will be proud.

[Leftridge]

Here is one solution: I am just throwing spaghetti on the wall to see if it sticks. lol

I am sure that there are a few shooters in the country that shoot classifiers consistantly over the 100% mark, ex: Sevigny, Max, Eusebio, Tilley, Leatham, vogel, Blake etc. etc. Call those guys the key shooters, now if one of those key shooters shoots any match, beside local, and a person who is ranked at a B class level shoots 85% of one of the key shooters in that match, then he automatically gets bumped to Master. Under the current classification, I am around 91%(Master), If I shot 85% of Blake, I would say that i had a great match. The sandbagging is done at the local level, so they can win at the major match level. so in essence a shooter can get classified at the local level, but it doesn't mean anything until they shoot their first major with a key shooter. when they shoot that match against a key shooter then their classification will be adjusted accordingly.

What would be wrong with this system of classification?

This is the way I undestand that it is. With the exception there has to be 3 GMs to get bumped. What if only 1 GM was shooting that division, and they had two really bad stages and you shot the match clean.

Should you get bumped?

[Poppa Bear]

It is much better to be able to say you were High C then to say you were 75th out of 145.

This is the part I disagree with and don't really understand. I think bragging about being High C would be pretty embarassing to me. I'd feel MUCH better about saying I was 75th out of 145 when 6 months ago I was 100th out of 145.

But I understand many people agree with your thinking and would stop competing if they didn't get their dose of 'everyone is a winner'. That doesn't bother me. I just mock them.

I look for shooters who are typically doing a little better than me (regardless of division), and focus my efforts on catching them and improving, and moving to the next class.

To me it is all in the context of the placement. Getting first place in the C class is great. Beating 20 or 25 percent of the B shooters to get there is better. Now that I am a low B, I expect to get smoked by the A,M and GM shooters. The classification system allows us to see how we are doing against shooters of similar abilities. Is there really a difference between a high C and a low B? Not really, it is just an arbitrary cut off point in the percentages. That difference really starts to disappear as you move from A to M to GM. At this level it becomes less about how quick you can shoot and more about accuracy and how quick you move, transition, and plan.