Eliminate divisions from classification system?

[bbbean]

Shooter C is a single stack guy who only thinks in sixes,...

Maybe he should consider revolver!

[Blueridge]

I doubt that L-10, SS or Revo gets enough GM's for the match to count as a classifier anywhere other than nationals. (I just checked A1 and A6 for this year and that is the case.)

Actually in the case of Revolver Division the Memphis Charity Challenge has for it's existence gotten enough for the match to count as a classifier every time. I have never gone to Revolver Nationals and probably never will because I will never likely win a spot to Nationals. I have however made it to every MCC match so far and had a great time competing against 60+ revolver shooters. In fact I made C class after shooting the last MCC where there was a classifier stage and the match as a whole was classifier in itself. I was more proud of how I classified in the match as a whole than the classifier stage. I feel that matches that count as classifiers are more accurate in showing skill level in a "here and now" viewpoint. No one is going to try and "tank" a whole match, and therefore I believe that it is a better reflection of the skill level of a shooter. Now a shooter can have a bad day at a match, but a shooter can have a bad classifier stage also.

Edited May 11, 2012 by Blueridge

[Flexmoney]

[Off topic alert]

I have never gone to Revolver Nationals and probably never will because I will never likely win a spot to Nationals.

you don't need to win a spot to go to the Nationals. Just sign up. Like any other match. This one (Nationals) has an online sign up. Plus, those that don't get a slot that way...may be able to sign up in person at the match. (so far, they have never turned anybody away. Not a certainty...but, so far.)

[motosapiens]

As someone who considers the class and division system useful and a big part of the appeal of the sport, I wonder why those who insist they are only competing against the best care so much if I take a little extra pleasure in being high C or high B. It's like getting upset because the guy next to you on the highway thinks his beater is a hot rod. Let him enjoy his car and go on about your business.

The current system works, and while there are those who abuse it, I believe those exceptions are fewer and further between than you'd guess from reading this thread. Besides, the shooting world is pretty small, and notorious sandbaggers have to live with the reputation. Time wounds all heels.

BB

BB, I agree the class system is useful for tracking one's progress, and as mentioned previously, I don't have any quibble with recognizing high class shooters, but I do think it's counterproductive (and insulting to shooters who try their best to move up) to give valuable prizes to those shooters because the class is such an arbitrary distinction. Really, how much pleasure could I take in being high D or high C when I know there guys in the next class up that are better shooters and who simply are being punished for being luckky, or practicing more, or making 1 or 2 fewer misses on their last couple classifiers. They're only the high shooter in that class because they really belong in the next class up but just lucked out in not getting bumped up there yet.

I'd rather see a system that recognized high shooters in class, raffled off valuable prizes, and best of all offered some incentive for reaching higher classifications. I don't know what form those incentives could take, maybe somehow improving chances for acceptance into major matches that sell out or something.

I think if there are no valuable prizes for high shooters in class, some sandbagging will still occur, but no one will really care. This discussion wouldn't need to happen because there wouldn't be any chance of a M in one division shooting A and getting valuable prizes in another division.

But... whatever.... I recognize that my view is in the minority. I've been making the same arguments for years in other sports. In those sports I have managed to achieve and compete in the higher classes. I at least feel consistent that my opinion hasn't changed even tho I'm in the lowest classes of shooting. I'm still more interested in improving my skill and moving up through c, b and as far as I can get than I am in 'winning' my class of other people who weren't good enough to classify higher.

[tackdr1ver]

As someone who considers the class and division system useful and a big part of the appeal of the sport, I wonder why those who insist they are only competing against the best care so much if I take a little extra pleasure in being high C or high B. It's like getting upset because the guy next to you on the highway thinks his beater is a hot rod. Let him enjoy his car and go on about your business.

The current system works, and while there are those who abuse it, I believe those exceptions are fewer and further between than you'd guess from reading this thread. Besides, the shooting world is pretty small, and notorious sandbaggers have to live with the reputation. Time wounds all heels.

BB

BB, I agree the class system is useful for tracking one's progress, and as mentioned previously, I don't have any quibble with recognizing high class shooters, but I do think it's counterproductive (and insulting to shooters who try their best to move up) to give valuable prizes to those shooters because the class is such an arbitrary distinction. Really, how much pleasure could I take in being high D or high C when I know there guys in the next class up that are better shooters and who simply are being punished for being luckky, or practicing more, or making 1 or 2 fewer misses on their last couple classifiers. They're only the high shooter in that class because they really belong in the next class up but just lucked out in not getting bumped up there yet.

I'd rather see a system that recognized high shooters in class, raffled off valuable prizes, and best of all offered some incentive for reaching higher classifications. I don't know what form those incentives could take, maybe somehow improving chances for acceptance into major matches that sell out or something.

I think if there are no valuable prizes for high shooters in class, some sandbagging will still occur, but no one will really care. This discussion wouldn't need to happen because there wouldn't be any chance of a M in one division shooting A and getting valuable prizes in another division.

But... whatever.... I recognize that my view is in the minority. I've been making the same arguments for years in other sports. In those sports I have managed to achieve and compete in the higher classes. I at least feel consistent that my opinion hasn't changed even tho I'm in the lowest classes of shooting. I'm still more interested in improving my skill and moving up through c, b and as far as I can get than I am in 'winning' my class of other people who weren't good enough to classify higher.

I am one of those people who are proud when they place in a lower division. I have been working very hard to improve and it doesn't come all that easily to me. Each good match, each shot fired is a personal victory and keeps the wheels greased. While I am not M material today, someday I will be! There's no shame in being proud of a D, C, B or A class win at a major at all! Each person is on a journey, having little moments like wins along the way are a good thing!

I have been shooting for two years now and I have been stuck in C 90% of that time because I never really practiced right or did what was necessary to elevate my game. It came to the point where I wanted more, got a coach and started practicing regularly and now, I finally shot my first A class classifier and it feels pretty damned good to know that my hard work is paying off and I am going somewhere.

The thing is: no matter where you are classed, no matter who you shoot against it shouldn't matter. If you go out and do your best and work really hard you'll find victory in every match whether you get a trophy/prize or not!

[glefos]

Why not a Level II or Level III match exception to the classification system? If you win your class at Level II or III, you get an automatic bump to the next class. You could possbily take it a step further and 2 2nd place or 3 3rd place plaque/trophy/cash finishes get you bumped as well. That would eliminate the perennial sandbaggers looking for a class win before being bumped. That might be a bit difficult to manage at USPSA HQ though.

[Chuck Anderson]

Why not a Level II or Level III match exception to the classification system? If you win your class at Level II or III, you get an automatic bump to the next class. You could possbily take it a step further and 2 2nd place or 3 3rd place plaque/trophy/cash finishes get you bumped as well. That would eliminate the perennial sandbaggers looking for a class win before being bumped. That might be a bit difficult to manage at USPSA HQ though.

Most Level II and III matches do not have a high enough representation of GMs to truly be an accurate reflection for classification. Take a level II. L10 with 35 shooters and the highest class shooter is one A. If he wins he shoots 100% does that make him an M? How about the B class guy who finished up at 90%. Does that make him an A or even an M?

[CZinSC]

Why not a Level II or Level III match exception to the classification system? If you win your class at Level II or III, you get an automatic bump to the next class. You could possbily take it a step further and 2 2nd place or 3 3rd place plaque/trophy/cash finishes get you bumped as well. That would eliminate the perennial sandbaggers looking for a class win before being bumped. That might be a bit difficult to manage at USPSA HQ though.

Most Level II and III matches do not have a high enough representation of GMs to truly be an accurate reflection for classification. Take a level II. L10 with 35 shooters and the highest class shooter is one A. If he wins he shoots 100% does that make him an M? How about the B class guy who finished up at 90%. Does that make him an A or even an M?

Good point, however, what if you have a C shooter that beats all of the B's? ( lvl II or II )

If a C shooter beats one or two B's, I can see that, as has been mentioned before, a low b is very close to a high C. But what if you have a level III match, where there are 19 B shooters present, and the C Shooter beats them all. Should he not be bumped to B? I don't care how many GM's, M's, or A's are present, and how well they did. If you can beat 19 B Shooters and you're shooting C, you should be auto-bumped to B. ( FWIW, this is a real case scenario, it happened at the same match, two years in a row, and ironically enough, it was the same shooter both years).

[BBoyle]

If we were to get rid of the classification system we would see a lot less participation at our local matches. As far as being classed the same across the board, I am not really against it but it is not fair for people with vision problems that shoot open to try production or limited and be expected, even with practice, to similarly perform.

Brian

[jar]

I think if there are no valuable prizes for high shooters in class, some sandbagging will still occur, but no one will really care. This discussion wouldn't need to happen because there wouldn't be any chance of a M in one division shooting A and getting valuable prizes in another division.

But... whatever.... I recognize that my view is in the minority. I've been making the same arguments for years in other sports. In those sports I have managed to achieve and compete in the higher classes. I at least feel consistent that my opinion hasn't changed even tho I'm in the lowest classes of shooting. I'm still more interested in improving my skill and moving up through c, b and as far as I can get than I am in 'winning' my class of other people who weren't good enough to classify higher.

I agree with most of your view. IMO, prizes should either be random draw or strict order of finish. Anything else is either going to encourage sandbagging or be random by another name. Don't get me started on the idiocy that is Lewis Class. "If I had shot just a bit worse, I would've won my class and gotten a prize..."

[glefos]

Why not a Level II or Level III match exception to the classification system? If you win your class at Level II or III, you get an automatic bump to the next class. You could possbily take it a step further and 2 2nd place or 3 3rd place plaque/trophy/cash finishes get you bumped as well. That would eliminate the perennial sandbaggers looking for a class win before being bumped. That might be a bit difficult to manage at USPSA HQ though.

Most Level II and III matches do not have a high enough representation of GMs to truly be an accurate reflection for classification. Take a level II. L10 with 35 shooters and the highest class shooter is one A. If he wins he shoots 100% does that make him an M? How about the B class guy who finished up at 90%. Does that make him an A or even an M?

What do GMs have to do with it? If you are a C and beat 25 other Cs, that is a fantastic argument to get the automatic bump to B. there don't need to be any GMs.

I'm not talking counting the match percentage as ONE of your classifiers of record.

[Blueridge]

[Off topic alert]

I have never gone to Revolver Nationals and probably never will because I will never likely win a spot to Nationals.

you don't need to win a spot to go to the Nationals. Just sign up. Like any other match. This one (Nationals) has an online sign up. Plus, those that don't get a slot that way...may be able to sign up in person at the match. (so far, they have never turned anybody away. Not a certainty...but, so far.)

My understanding from reading the USPSAS Nationals page is that a slot must be earned and if you don't get a slot that way then it is possible that you can sign up and receive a slot that was not filled later. I am not one to plan a vacation where nationals is held hoping that I get to compete in it. Either I earn a slot or I don't plan on going. The only guarantee for competing in the nationals is earning a slot. It may be possible to get one in other ways, but that it simply a possibility I have no interest in pursuing.

I am a competitive fencer along with competing in shooting sports. I have qualified 12 out of the last 13 years for the US Fencing Nationals and competed in all of them I have qualified for. Maybe that has set me in my ways to wanting to earn a slot at USPSA Nationals and not just "luck" into a slot. By the way this year is my 12th time qualifying for and competing in the US Fencing Nationals.

[moverfive]

Everyone trying to make an argument that just because you win your class you should therefore get bumped into the next class......is missing one very key element - the actual percentage/score of that shooter. It doesn't matter who you beat or how many of "them" you beat....it only matters what your actual score is.

And that is why having enough GM's is critical - without enough GM's posting solid scores, the resulting percentages don't mean anything from a classification standpoint. For example: A match without GM's is won by a respectable Master.....on a good day, this Master will shoot 85% of good GM's. So in this particular match a C-class shooter wins his class with a 65% score - they DID NOT shoot a B-class score as some would like to believe. That 65% score is essentially a 55% score against GM's.....and 55% is a C-class score. (trust me.....do the math).

In almost all cases where enough GM's shot, if you were to look at the winners of each class......they are probably within 5% of their classification range (really within a couple of percentage points).

And in those rare cases where someone blows the doors of the scores - take a look at their shooting history, you will probably find a newer shooter that is advancing faster than the classification system can keep up. But we are probably talking about 1, maybe 2 shooters in the entire match, and they will get bumped immediately after that match. I know, I was in that category myself as every single classification I got through A-class came from match performance.

[West Texas Granny]

How many GM's are enough?

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

Everyone trying to make an argument that just because you win your class you should therefore get bumped into the next class......is missing one very key element - the actual percentage/score of that shooter. It doesn't matter who you beat or how many of "them" you beat....it only matters what your actual score is.

And that is why having enough GM's is critical - without enough GM's posting solid scores, the resulting percentages don't mean anything from a classification standpoint. For example: A match without GM's is won by a respectable Master.....on a good day, this Master will shoot 85% of good GM's. So in this particular match a C-class shooter wins his class with a 65% score - they DID NOT shoot a B-class score as some would like to believe. That 65% score is essentially a 55% score against GM's.....and 55% is a C-class score. (trust me.....do the math).

You don't need a GM to run each course of fire to determine what 100% should look like -- not if your club has decent classification track records. If a match is won by a respectable Master, you could treat his winning score as 90%, or whatever his current classification score is, rather than 100%.

Once you start doing that, you probably don't need to draw such a distinction between classification stages and non-classification stages. The classification stages will have a larger data set of shooters and their scores, but the non-classification stages can be normalized against them.

[Carmoney]

I would much rather see us eliminate classifications from the division system, than see us eliminate divisions from the classification system.

There are many completely coherent reasons for having separate equipment divisions.

It's a whole lot harder to justify a system which inherently rewards mediocrity.

[aztecdriver]

I would much rather see us eliminate classifications from the division system, than see us eliminate divisions from the classification system.

There are many completely coherent reasons for having separate equipment divisions.

It's a whole lot harder to justify a system which inherently rewards mediocrity.

Disagree completely. In order to develop in anything, it's appropriate to set goals within reachable standards. Reach them and then reset. One of the unique things in the sport is being on the same competitive field of those at the upper echelon, learn from them, while still achieving goals within your reach. If you remove the classification system, you remove that level of uniqueness and by necessity have to start isolating those matches meant for higher levels to lower levels - much like minor league ball does. Otherwise, the investment in matches to encourage growth in the sport will become unsustainable or people will just never get better.

While I get what you are saying, and it seems to be directed at those that are content to win B division at majors when they could be striving for something higher - I can tell you without being able to measure my progress against like skilled competitors - I would not have had as much interest and drive become as involved as I have.

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

In order to develop in anything, it's appropriate to set goals within reachable standards. Reach them and then reset. One of the unique things in the sport is being on the same competitive field of those at the upper echelon, learn from them, while still achieving goals within your reach. If you remove the classification system, you remove that level of uniqueness and by necessity have to start isolating those matches meant for higher levels to lower levels - much like minor league ball does. Otherwise, the investment in matches to encourage growth in the sport will become unsustainable or people will just never get better.

While I get what you are saying, and it seems to be directed at those that are content to win B division at majors when they could be striving for something higher - I can tell you without being able to measure my progress against like skilled competitors - I would not have had as much interest and drive become as involved as I have.

As long as you have a numerical score that's normalized (like USPSA's percent scores), so you can compare it from match to match, you don't need a class.

Addendum: Shooting could easily adapt golf's handicapping system, so all classes could compete against one another.

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

[Carmoney]

I would much rather see us eliminate classifications from the division system, than see us eliminate divisions from the classification system.

There are many completely coherent reasons for having separate equipment divisions.

It's a whole lot harder to justify a system which inherently rewards mediocrity.

Disagree completely. In order to develop in anything, it's appropriate to set goals within reachable standards. Reach them and then reset. One of the unique things in the sport is being on the same competitive field of those at the upper echelon, learn from them, while still achieving goals within your reach. If you remove the classification system, you remove that level of uniqueness and by necessity have to start isolating those matches meant for higher levels to lower levels - much like minor league ball does. Otherwise, the investment in matches to encourage growth in the sport will become unsustainable or people will just never get better.

While I get what you are saying, and it seems to be directed at those that are content to win B division at majors when they could be striving for something higher - I can tell you without being able to measure my progress against like skilled competitors - I would not have had as much interest and drive become as involved as I have.

I understand those realities of human nature, and I'm not necessarily advocating a change in the system.

I suppose that sprinkling plaques and trinkets down through the ranks is probably OK, but I have always believed that any real prizes should be earned by true competitive performance.

[aztecdriver]

I understand those realities of human nature, and I'm not necessarily advocating a change in the system.

I suppose that sprinkling plaques and trinkets down through the ranks is probably OK, but I have always believed that any real prizes should be earned by true competitive performance.

Yeah - I've actually received a cash payout for second B production at a match that was better than top M open. It wasn't MUCH of anything, but one would have to look at that and call foul - even I did - but no, I didn't hand over my money.

Just keep in mind B/C classes contribute the most in support to the sport. Though I aspire to be better and am working hard at it, that's where I sit. There are those that will be B forever and a day and just shoot to shoot. They pay their fees, they act as staff, but when it comes to supporting a match with entry fees, those are the people that get and keep the match on the ground. The GMs show us how it's done and inspire us to "go fast". I'd like to see it grow to the levels that there is a significant "win" for the big boys - but the way were setup - I just don't see it as good practice to completely ignore those that are the "base".

We're on the same page...

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

I suppose that sprinkling plaques and trinkets down through the ranks is probably OK, but I have always believed that any real prizes should be earned by true competitive performance.

To me, the prize should be moving up a class.

[West Texas Granny]

The sport would wither and die if not for the classification system.

Some numbers based upon the 14 major matches this year.

Total competitors = 3166

# GM class shooters = 152---4.8%

# M class shooters = 327---10.33%

# A class shooters = 367---11.59%

# B class shooters = 739---23.34%

# C class shooters = 820---25.90%

# D class shooters = 199---6.29%

# U class shooters = 531---16.67%

Of the Major Matches the % of GM's to total number of individual match participants ranged from a low of 1.27% to a high of 9.38%.

There were 2 matches in the 2% range. Three matches in the 3% range. Three matches in the 4% range. Three matches in the 5% range. One match in the 6% range.

Individual total match participation ranged from 56 to 407.

Average number of participants was 226.14 per match.

GM participation ranged from a low of 2 to a high of 24.

Average number of GM's participating in each match is 10.85.

Average number of "M" class participating in each match is 23.35.

Average number of "A" class participating in each match is 26.21.

Average number of "B" class participating in each match is 52.78.

Average number of "C" class participating in each match is 58.57.

Average number of "D" class participating in each match is 14.22.

Average number of "U" class participating in each match is 37.92.

"M" class shooter representation ranged from a low of 1 to a high of 41.

"A" class shooter representation ranged from a low of 2 to a high of 57.

"B" class shooter representation ranged from a low of 5 to a high of 114.

"C" class shooter representation ranged from a low of 5 to a high of 109.

"D" class shooter representation ranged from a low of 0 to a high of 27.

"U" class representation ranged from a low of 7 to a high of 142.

Edited May 24, 2012 by West Texas Granny

[motosapiens]

The sport would wither and die if not for the classification system.

Why?

Do you think some people would get discouraged and quit if they didn't have a chance of winning a plaque or prize?

I think that kind of stuff is important to some folks, but I have no idea how many need the artificial ego-stroking and how many can just use the overall and their percentages to see their improvement and gain gratification from simply getting better.

I do think that the different classifications offer tangible goals even for the improvement-driven shooters that aren't hoping to get a prize, but I wonder how important being high shooter in a class is to some folks. It's completely irrelevant to me because I know I would only be the 'high' shooter due to the artificial exclusion of many others just because they are better.

But whatever. I just like to shoot, and I can see how my percentages are getting better regardless of what everyone else does, so whatever makes y'all happy is awesome.

[Leftridge]

Anyone that thinks we should eliminate classifications needs to think about this. Let's you lose to a sandbagger (you're a 59.99% C and he/she beats you buy 15 spots and finishes 71%), maybe you feel cheated.

If you get rid of the classification system, in that same match that person would still beat you by 15 spots and 11.01%. What's the point?

Practice & get better or don't, but have fun and enjoy yourself.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Leftridge

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

The sport would wither and die if not for the classification system.

I think there's more than one way to keep the non-Grandmasters invested. If you get rid of the classification system as it stands now, you do have to replace with something, but the current system isn't the only way to run a sport.

Do you think some people would get discouraged and quit if they didn't have a chance of winning a plaque or prize?

I think that's undeniable, and loudly proclaiming how we don't need "artificial ego-stroking" doesn't change human nature.

I still think people enjoy "leveling up," as the computer-gamers would say, so a handicapping system or chess-ranking system should work just fine. I also think IDPA's level-naming is much more appealing than D-, C-, B-, and A-class: Novice, Marksman, Sharpshooter, and Expert.

Edited May 24, 2012 by Not-So-Mad Matt