Eliminate divisions from classification system?

[G-ManBart]

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

Open totally trashes that argument. There are a lot of folks out there with vision issues that keep them from seeing the front sight clearly, but they can shoot an Open gun with a dot just fine. For them, it would be totally unfair to have the same classification in the other Divisions. Personally, I don't care....I gauge my performance on how many spots I am from first place, regardless of division, and couldn't care less about Class placings. R,

[JimmyZip]

I think that there is enough difference in the divisions to justify them. Are you saying that a guy who is a GM open shooter is just going to be able to pick up a revolver or some striker fired pistol, and shoot to the same level of proficiency? Really? IF that were the case, then why wouldn't more people be GMs across all divisions?

Oh, and great to see you posting tonight G-Man.

Edited May 25, 2012 by JimmyZip

[aztecdriver]

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

Open totally trashes that argument. There are a lot of folks out there with vision issues that keep them from seeing the front sight clearly, but they can shoot an Open gun with a dot just fine. For them, it would be totally unfair to have the same classification in the other Divisions. Personally, I don't care....I gauge my performance on how many spots I am from first place, regardless of division, and couldn't care less about Class placings. R,

Or even vice-versa. I just picked up an Open gun for the first time. There is no way I'm close to performing with it as I do with my limited stuff. It's not as easy as everyone thinks...

[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

Open totally trashes that argument. There are a lot of folks out there with vision issues that keep them from seeing the front sight clearly, but they can shoot an Open gun with a dot just fine. For them, it would be totally unfair to have the same classification in the other Divisions. Personally, I don't care....I gauge my performance on how many spots I am from first place, regardless of division, and couldn't care less about Class placings. R,

then why would someone that can't see a front sight shoot a divsion that requires it? If they are in open because of vision issues, I can't seem them shooting any other division.

[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

Open totally trashes that argument. There are a lot of folks out there with vision issues that keep them from seeing the front sight clearly, but they can shoot an Open gun with a dot just fine. For them, it would be totally unfair to have the same classification in the other Divisions. Personally, I don't care....I gauge my performance on how many spots I am from first place, regardless of division, and couldn't care less about Class placings. R,

Or even vice-versa. I just picked up an Open gun for the first time. There is no way I'm close to performing with it as I do with my limited stuff. It's not as easy as everyone thinks...

But, with work, you will be. that's the point. Transitions, movement, all that stuff is the same and one has already proven they can do that. Get the dot figured out and you will be performing at your normal level.

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

I think that there is enough difference in the divisions to justify them.

Whether there should be divisions is a different question from how classifications should work across divisions. Should classifications be divorced from divisions? Probably not, because shooting an open gun isn't exactly the same as shooting a revolver. Should classifications be tied to divisions? Probably not, because shooting an open gun isn't completely different from shooting a revolver.

Right now we go with the latter philosophy and throw up our hands when someone tries a new division. GM in production? Lalala, I can't hear you. You're unclassified in Limited.

We could probably improve the situation by using the last few scores in a division, as we currently do, supplemented by the last few scores in the next closest division, if the shooter wouldn't meet the quota without them. So a GM wouldn't start out as unclassified in another division but as a GM, until he ran through enough classifiers to get demoted (briefly).

[motosapiens]

I think that there is enough difference in the divisions to justify them.

Whether there should be divisions is a different question from how classifications should work across divisions. Should classifications be divorced from divisions? Probably not, because shooting an open gun isn't exactly the same as shooting a revolver. Should classifications be tied to divisions? Probably not, because shooting an open gun isn't completely different from shooting a revolver.

Right now we go with the latter philosophy and throw up our hands when someone tries a new division. GM in production? Lalala, I can't hear you. You're unclassified in Limited.

We could probably improve the situation by using the last few scores in a division, as we currently do, supplemented by the last few scores in the next closest division, if the shooter wouldn't meet the quota without them. So a GM wouldn't start out as unclassified in another division but as a GM, until he ran through enough classifiers to get demoted (briefly).

I can see both sides of this debate, but I think the debate pretty much goes away if there aren't valuable prizes and stuff for class 'winners'. If the prizes are all raffled off, and the class 'winner' gets a pat on the back and a match bump, then would anyone really care if a GM from one division was classed lower in some other division? Take away the incentive to sandbag, and maybe no one would care if a handful of people still did it.

Just in what I've read here, it seems that for many people it's a real goal to make a certain class in every division. Yes, there's a lot of crossover between limited, l10 and production, but as others have pointed out, revolver and open are totally different animals

[West Texas Granny]

What is the purpose of shooting 4 classifiers to get that first classification? Any reason for not shooting just one classifier to get initially classified.

[Leftridge]

What is the purpose of shooting 4 classifiers to get that first classification? Any reason for not shooting just one classifier to get initially classified.

If a solid "B" shooter happens to hit a no shoot on a classifier he/she will be around 35%. That would make the issue worse because now a solid "B" shooter could go to a Level 2 or 3 and shoot for top "D".

[Leftridge]

I didn't read this WHOLE thread but here is my 1 issue with the current system:

Why wait for 4 classifiers before you are automatically classed in every other division. If you are an "A" class Limited shooter - you should INSTANTLY become "B" in everything else - why wait for 4 classifiers to get classed? This would save having people shoot the "U" division who are actually classed high in other divisions. Not picking on anyone but last week at MS Classic Max Jr. won HOA SS while being "U" class - I know he just started shooting but if there were others in the class would it have been fair for Max to be 1st "U" when everyone knows how great he is?

Get rid of the 4 classifiers to be classified if automatically classified in another division. All this would do is eliminate some sandbagging

So do you think it would have been better for Max to be classified "M" at that match?

[Chills1994]

Motosapiens wrote:

Just in what I've read here, ....

See?

That's just it....what you have read here. Your "sampling" is skewed.

one, it is just anecdotal.

Two, a phenomenon called "social desirability".

See? None of the sandbaggers who have been checking in on this thread from time to time aren't going to out themselves and post "heck, YEAH! I want to be first place C at some match, get a trophy, and possibly a trip to the prize table!"

They know it is NOT socially desirable to publicly broadcast that they sandbagg.

[Supermoto]

So do you think it would have been better for Max to be classified "M" at that match?

Does it matter? Are you going to finish higher if he is classed as a GM? No. People are poing to finish based on how they shot, not based on a letter next to your name.

[bbbean]

What is the purpose of shooting 4 classifiers to get that first classification? Any reason for not shooting just one classifier to get initially classified.

If a solid "B" shooter happens to hit a no shoot on a classifier he/she will be around 35%. That would make the issue worse because now a solid "B" shooter could go to a Level 2 or 3 and shoot for top "D".

The flip side is true as well. If our first classifier hits you on a good day on the right classifier, you could easily put in a score well above what you can do on a good day.

Any given classifier could be an outlier. There's a reason we use means, modes, and medians when we try to measure things that happen repeatedly.

[shooting for M]

OK, I'll bite. IMO SS, Limited and L-10 are all very close and I agree with the way things are now in those divisions. Production is fairly close, but with significant more emphasis on accuracy. If you drop some points in the Major PF divisions it doesn't hurt as bad as Prod, esp. at the C-lower M classes, higher M and GM shooters aren't dropping many points anyway. Open is a different shooting style, some say more forgiving, maybe but I have played around with the Cassifier calculators some and my 90% runs in Lim are about 70-75% in Open, thats a big difference.

Revolver is completely different than any semi auto gun. Pretty much the only skills that translate are sights and trigger. Different grip, different reloads, more reloads so accuraccy is very important on steel, diferent recoil cycle.

IMO Lim, L-10 and SS should be the way they are, Prod drop up to 2 classes and open and Revo should be completely unattached to any other division.

To me the issue with the classifiers is those stages don't translate very well to actual match performance, especially at a major. It's all a double edged sword though making the classifiers more like field courses would be a lot harder for a small club to set up and for any club to set up perfectly.

Granny, one classifier can be way out of touch with true ability. Say you are really a B class shooter and smoke your first classifier with say 96%. Now you are a GM for life. Or you tank it and shoot 40% and you are coming up to a major right as you get classified, now you are a D shooter on paper and win 1st D with a 70% you now get bumped, but maybe you would have won B too. It's easy enough for some people to sandbag or grandbag, but this would greatly increase this and it would happen with no intent.

[West Texas Granny]

What is the purpose of shooting 4 classifiers to get that first classification? Any reason for not shooting just one classifier to get initially classified.

If a solid "B" shooter happens to hit a no shoot on a classifier he/she will be around 35%. That would make the issue worse because now a solid "B" shooter could go to a Level 2 or 3 and shoot for top "D".

The flip side is true as well. If our first classifier hits you on a good day on the right classifier, you could easily put in a score well above what you can do on a good day.

Any given classifier could be an outlier. There's a reason we use means, modes, and medians when we try to measure things that happen repeatedly.

I ask because I'm trying to get classified in Limited, Limited 10, SS and Open. That's a 16 month endeavor or 8 months if I make the 120 mile round trip to the next closet range in my area but with gas near $4 a gallon I just can't afford that round trip. As a result I'm limited to only 1 classifier a month.

Now I understand your concerns but I think those concerns could be overcome by requiring a minimum # of classifiers on record for major matches. Anyway just wondering.

[ChuckS]

What is the purpose of shooting 4 classifiers to get that first classification? Any reason for not shooting just one classifier to get initially classified.

If a solid "B" shooter happens to hit a no shoot on a classifier he/she will be around 35%. That would make the issue worse because now a solid "B" shooter could go to a Level 2 or 3 and shoot for top "D".

The flip side is true as well. If our first classifier hits you on a good day on the right classifier, you could easily put in a score well above what you can do on a good day.

Any given classifier could be an outlier. There's a reason we use means, modes, and medians when we try to measure things that happen repeatedly.

I ask because I'm trying to get classified in Limited, Limited 10, SS and Open. That's a 16 month endeavor or 8 months if I make the 120 mile round trip to the next closet range in my area but with gas near $4 a gallon I just can't afford that round trip. As a result I'm limited to only 1 classifier a month.

Now I understand your concerns but I think those concerns could be overcome by requiring a minimum # of classifiers on record for major matches. Anyway just wondering.

Talk to the match officials. They will usually support re-shoots of classifiers in different divisions. You shoot the first classifier in the division that you are in for the match and then repeat as necessary for the additional divisions. I got my initial open classification shooting a single stack with iron sights. They will charge you a few bucks to cover the processing cost of the additional classifiers.

Later,

Chuck

Edited May 25, 2012 by ChuckS

[old506]

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.

I couldn't agree more.....

[bbbean]

I ask because I'm trying to get classified in Limited, Limited 10, SS and Open. That's a 16 month endeavor or 8 months if I make the 120 mile round trip to the next closet range in my area but with gas near $4 a gallon I just can't afford that round trip. As a result I'm limited to only 1 classifier a month.

Somethings just take time. You may have to travel to a special classifier match or two or re-shoot the classifier in a different division. The point of the 4 initial/best 6 of 8 system is to give an accurate idea of what kind of shooter you are, not to save $$.

BB

[Thomas H]

To me the issue with the classifiers is those stages don't translate very well to actual match performance, especially at a major. It's all a double edged sword though making the classifiers more like field courses would be a lot harder for a small club to set up and for any club to set up perfectly.

Hm. And yet, when I look at majors, I see the GMs at the top, then M, then A, then B, etc in terms of shooter finish. Yes, there is some crossover, but in the main, it is fairly straightforward. Is it perfect for every single person? Of course not. Is classification (in the main) a decent indicator of relative level? Certainly. At least, according to most majors.

I'm also betting that in most of your local matches, people normally finish roughly in order of class. (With occasional crossover.)

It is certainly true that most classifiers don't seem to test stage breakdown and movement skills. And yet---you can see that it works during large matches.

[ctay]

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.

I really don't understand the hate toward the "lessor" classes. I have only been shooting for a year and am a C class shooter in open and production. I try every time I shoot to do the very best I can. I practice and I try to improve my shooting. I like the opportunity to compare myself to others that have roughly my same current ability. I know I'm not going to be able to beat the M class shooters at my club anytime soon. I can set a more reasonable goal of trying to beat the other guys that have comparably similar abilities as I have. The classification system allows me to identify shooters of my current ability much easier.

What exactly is wrong with saying "I didn't win overall but I did beat the other guys with similar skills!". How exactly does that make me a special-olympics winner?

That type of disdain for the guys that "aren't very good" is a real negative for our sport. Being high C doesn't make you king of the hill but it does provide motivation to continue improving.

How exactly does that detract from your ability to compare yourself to the overall winner?

[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.

I really don't understand the hate toward the "lessor" classes. I have only been shooting for a year and am a C class shooter in open and production. I try every time I shoot to do the very best I can. I practice and I try to improve my shooting. I like the opportunity to compare myself to others that have roughly my same current ability. I know I'm not going to be able to beat the M class shooters at my club anytime soon. I can set a more reasonable goal of trying to beat the other guys that have comparably similar abilities as I have. The classification system allows me to identify shooters of my current ability much easier.

What exactly is wrong with saying "I didn't win overall but I did beat the other guys with similar skills!". How exactly does that make me a special-olympics winner?

That type of disdain for the guys that "aren't very good" is a real negative for our sport. Being high C doesn't make you king of the hill but it does provide motivation to continue improving.

How exactly does that detract from your ability to compare yourself to the overall winner?

Whoa there, I have no disdain for lower classes. I'm one of them. I just don't understand the desire to draw an arbitrary line and then say "yay, i shot better than the other guys under this arbitrary line that excludes people that are better."

I'm in a similar situation to you, except that I don't really pay too much attention to how I did against other C or D shooters. I pay attention to how I shot percentage-wise overall, and I keep an eye on shooters I know who normally finish near me (regardless of class). If i had a good match, my percentage of the winner's score is better, regardless of whether the other c's and d's that showed up had good days or bad days.

Edited May 25, 2012 by motosapiens

[aztecdriver]

I ask because I'm trying to get classified in Limited, Limited 10, SS and Open. That's a 16 month endeavor or 8 months if I make the 120 mile round trip to the next closet range in my area but with gas near $4 a gallon I just can't afford that round trip. As a result I'm limited to only 1 classifier a month.

Now I understand your concerns but I think those concerns could be overcome by requiring a minimum # of classifiers on record for major matches. Anyway just wondering.

You guys are running around 20 shooters a month. Bring all your gear and shoot the classifier and record it, send the extra classifier money in and you'll be done in 4 months - or better yet, make the trip to the other range for two months (hint - ride with someone, split the gas costs, we do it all the time). You're golden in 2!

The 4 is there to get an average. It works...

[BillD]

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.

I really don't understand the hate toward the "lessor" classes. I have only been shooting for a year and am a C class shooter in open and production. I try every time I shoot to do the very best I can. I practice and I try to improve my shooting. I like the opportunity to compare myself to others that have roughly my same current ability. I know I'm not going to be able to beat the M class shooters at my club anytime soon. I can set a more reasonable goal of trying to beat the other guys that have comparably similar abilities as I have. The classification system allows me to identify shooters of my current ability much easier.

What exactly is wrong with saying "I didn't win overall but I did beat the other guys with similar skills!". How exactly does that make me a special-olympics winner?

That type of disdain for the guys that "aren't very good" is a real negative for our sport. Being high C doesn't make you king of the hill but it does provide motivation to continue improving.

How exactly does that detract from your ability to compare yourself to the overall winner?

Whoa there, I have no disdain for lower classes. I'm one of them. I just don't understand the desire to draw an arbitrary line and then say "yay, i shot better than the other guys under this arbitrary line that excludes people that are better."

So everyone under that arbitray line is a Special Olympics competitor?

Sounds like disdain to me. Or a poor choice of words.

[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.

I really don't understand the hate toward the "lessor" classes. I have only been shooting for a year and am a C class shooter in open and production. I try every time I shoot to do the very best I can. I practice and I try to improve my shooting. I like the opportunity to compare myself to others that have roughly my same current ability. I know I'm not going to be able to beat the M class shooters at my club anytime soon. I can set a more reasonable goal of trying to beat the other guys that have comparably similar abilities as I have. The classification system allows me to identify shooters of my current ability much easier.

What exactly is wrong with saying "I didn't win overall but I did beat the other guys with similar skills!". How exactly does that make me a special-olympics winner?

That type of disdain for the guys that "aren't very good" is a real negative for our sport. Being high C doesn't make you king of the hill but it does provide motivation to continue improving.

How exactly does that detract from your ability to compare yourself to the overall winner?

Whoa there, I have no disdain for lower classes. I'm one of them. I just don't understand the desire to draw an arbitrary line and then say "yay, i shot better than the other guys under this arbitrary line that excludes people that are better."

So everyone under that arbitray line is a Special Olympics competitor?

Sounds like disdain to me. Or a poor choice of words.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, bill, but you seem to have misunderstood me. At no point did I refer to the competitors as special olympics competitors. I was clearly referring to the class prizes and trophies as special olympics medals. I do certainly have disdain for such prizes and trophies. I have the deepest respect for all competitors, even those who desire trophies and prizes that I have disdain for.

My sincere apologies if anyone else misunderstood and got their feelings hurt.

[West Texas Granny]

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.

I couldn't agree more.....

Using your own words in quotes if you place first then you have "beat all the other guys that aren't very good"

There is only room for one winner in the system you support. That system will cause the our sport to wither and die. At the least the major matches will become GM only affairs and matches will be few and far between each other.No advertising, No USPSA. That's what you will get if the classification goes away.

Anyway hope everyone has a safe and enjoyable holiday. Now off to the range.