What should the Classifier emphasize?

[Model19]

As previously said, it's a shooting skills test and I think it does that well. It eliminates the athletic aspect, making it more fair for all. The 20-something who can sprint from A to B in 2 seconds has no advantage over the 40-something with bad knees who needs twice that time but can shoot equally as well.

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

As previously said, it's a shooting skills test and I think it does that well. It eliminates the athletic aspect, making it more fair for all. The 20-something who can sprint from A to B in 2 seconds has no advantage over the 40-something with bad knees who needs twice that time but can shoot equally as well.

But Stage 3 of the Classifier does include just such a sprint -- and dropping down to low cover. What it doesn't include is short moves into and out of cover.

If I were to redesign the Classifier, I might base it around shooting while moving to the barricade and then slicing the pie around the barricade.

[Model19]

As previously said, it's a shooting skills test and I think it does that well. It eliminates the athletic aspect, making it more fair for all. The 20-something who can sprint from A to B in 2 seconds has no advantage over the 40-something with bad knees who needs twice that time but can shoot equally as well.

But Stage 3 of the Classifier does include just such a sprint -- and dropping down to low cover. What it doesn't include is short moves into and out of cover.

If I were to redesign the Classifier, I might base it around shooting while moving to the barricade and then slicing the pie around the barricade.

True. The two times I have run it, our older guys are OK with the movement section because it's short and once they land they don't have to get up on the clock. And if it's indoors I put down a nice fat pad

[lugnut]

Healthy discussion but I wanted to just add a perspective. In my eyes- I use classifications as a way to measure my improvements (or lack thereof). I only set some of my goals around these milestones. I say "some" as performing well in matches is more important to me. In the end that is all that really matters to me. Now can I honestly say that I don't feel different pressures on classifiers as I do a regular stage (whether IDPA or USPSA)? No, but I'm working my way there.... really working at always trying to perform to the best of my abilities on every single stage, including a classifiers. I know plenty of people that really crank it up on classifiers, I personally don't think this makes much sense, besides that fact that in most cases when they push too hard- they crash and burn.

I guess what I'm trying to say is not to get too caught up in all this classification stuff... but to maintain a clear focus on improving all your skills for matches. There.

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

Healthy discussion but I wanted to just add a perspective. [...] I guess what I'm trying to say is not to get too caught up in all this classification stuff... but to maintain a clear focus on improving all your skills for matches. There.

I don't have a horse in this race, really, since I didn't make it to the recent Classifier I mentioned, but I do enjoy discussing how to make things (even) better. I think the Classifier would be (even) better if it tested skills like drawing from concealment and shooting while moving to cover and then slicing the pie around that cover. That's what IDPA is about, in a nutshell, and performance on such a test would better predict performance in a typical match.

Another design goal might be to make the Classifier quicker and easier to administer. Combining some of the strings might help. Here's what goes into the current Classifier:

Draws: 14

Slide-Lock Reloads: 2

Tactical Reloads (or Reloads with Retention): 2

Shots: 90

Move: 1 (plus a few steps of shooting while advancing and retreating, and kneeling twice)

Looking at that, I'd like to see far more slide-lock reloads, maybe not quite so many draws, and a lot more movement.

Edited May 23, 2012 by Not-So-Mad Matt

[M1911]

I know plenty of people that really crank it up on classifiers, I personally don't think this makes much sense, besides that fact that in most cases when they push too hard- they crash and burn.

At the last classifier when I was shooting SSR, I deliberately tried to crank it down, as I really didn't want to make expert. Of course, being deliberate and making your shots is, of course, the best way to do well on the classifier. So I ended up making expert.

I can't even sandbag properly.

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

I think the Classifier would be (even) better if it tested skills like drawing from concealment and shooting while moving to cover and then slicing the pie around that cover. That's what IDPA is about, in a nutshell, and performance on such a test would better predict performance in a typical match.

Let's imagine a variant of the Classifier, where we put the middle target back further than the left and right targets, so shooters have to change gears within a string of fire, and we put the barricade just 7 yards from those nearer side targets, so that each string can start with a couple shots on the way to the barricade, a couple shots from the far side of the barricade, and couple more shots on the far target after slicing the pie.

Each string could start from a slightly different position: (1) two yards ahead of the barricade, to the left, (2) two yards behind the barricade, to the left, (3) two yards ahead of the barricade, to the right, (4) two yards behind the barricade, to the right.

That one stage (of four similar strings) might predict match performance pretty well. We'd need to throw in some slide-lock reloads though...

[hkguy]

I think the Classifier would be (even) better if it tested skills like drawing from concealment and shooting while moving to cover and then slicing the pie around that cover. That's what IDPA is about, in a nutshell, and performance on such a test would better predict performance in a typical match.

Let's imagine a variant of the Classifier, where we put the middle target back further than the left and right targets, so shooters have to change gears within a string of fire, and we put the barricade just 7 yards from those nearer side targets, so that each string can start with a couple shots on the way to the barricade, a couple shots from the far side of the barricade, and couple more shots on the far target after slicing the pie.

Each string could start from a slightly different position: (1) two yards ahead of the barricade, to the left, (2) two yards behind the barricade, to the left, (3) two yards ahead of the barricade, to the right, (4) two yards behind the barricade, to the right.

That one stage (of four similar strings) might predict match performance pretty well. We'd need to throw in some slide-lock reloads though...

while you would provide more more "movement" it becomes burdensome to execute the first and third stages of the classifier if they were left as is. There is some height separation in the current targets that forces you to adjust your point of aim whereas if you kept the targets the same height and moved one target 2-3 yards back does not change POI for a given shooting position.

Perhaps adding a string of tactical sequence to stage 1 and stage 2 would get you closer to "real IDPA" stages, but again i think you have an "answer" in your head to a question you have yet to formulate. Another plus for the current classifier is that once it is set, you dont have to move anything between stages, you send the shooter to reload and then you score/paste targets. K.I.S.S. is what i would look for especially for my club, last month we pre-registered shooters for the classifier and needed 3 classifier bays at once and class 31 shooters, the next month we classified 23 shooters. We average 100-120 shooters at monthly matches, so time is a big deal for me where as it might not be at smaller clubs. Honestly looking big picture i still don't know why you have not done a ground up redesign of your "perfect/ideal" classifier and insist on tweaking the current one. Mind you i am for change in the classifier if it can be executed with little/ no set up between stages/strings, and can be run/executed efficiently

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

while you would provide more more "movement" it becomes burdensome to execute the first and third stages of the classifier if they were left as is.

We wouldn't need to keep the first and third stages as they currently are. In fact, it's not clear that we'd need to keep them at all.

There is some height separation in the current targets that forces you to adjust your point of aim whereas if you kept the targets the same height and moved one target 2-3 yards back does not change POI for a given shooting position.

Why would you assume that I'd want to remove that height difference? Also, I didn't specify, but I was thinking of putting the middle target, say, five yards back from the right and left targets.

So the first string of my New Classifier would have you draw from concealment and shoot the left target from (just over) five yards away, while retreating to the right to the barricade, then shoot the right target from seven yards away, from behind the barricade, then shoot the middle target from 12 yards, also from behind the barricade.

The second string would have you shoot the left target from (just under) nine yards away, while advancing to the right to the barricade, and then shoot the right and middle targets, as before.

The third and fourth strings would mirror these, starting from the right and moving left.

Those four strings cover the fundamentals -- shooting while moving to cover and then slicing the pie around cover -- from four angles.

If we'd like to add more shots and some slide-lock reloads, we could start each stage downloaded to six rounds in the gun and add two head-shots to each target at the end of each string.

[GmanCdp]

I know plenty of people that really crank it up on classifiers, I personally don't think this makes much sense, besides that fact that in most cases when they push too hard- they crash and burn.

At the last classifier when I was shooting SSR, I deliberately tried to crank it down, as I really didn't want to make expert. Of course, being deliberate and making your shots is, of course, the best way to do well on the classifier. So I ended up making expert.

I can't even sandbag properly.

qoute of the week........

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

The classifier does a good job of giving you a "jumping off point", but I don't put a whole lot of stock in it other than that. Shoot some major matches and take your bumps accordingly.

That reminds me: not only is the Classifier it's own thing, but Majors are their own thing, too. They're require their own skill set. For instance, Majors are often full of moving targets, really tight shots, etc.

[LRRP]

The Classifier is a "basic skills test" It is not meant to "simulate common stages."

I know a bunch of people that can shoot very fast and accurately up close but flat out fall apart at longer ranges or shooting with their off hand. Unless someone purposefully slows down to not go up a classification, the classifier is generally pretty accurate representation of your overall shooting ability.

X2 It is a basic test of skills. It's not meant to mimic a match. As far as the "distance" goes your only out at 20 for part of stage three everything else I would consider very close. As far as people not shooting to their normal potential....some people shoot classifiers well and are bad during matches and the opposite holds true for some. It's basically a standard.

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

It is a basic test of skills. It's not meant to mimic a match. As far as the "distance" goes your only out at 20 for part of stage three everything else I would consider very close. As far as people not shooting to their normal potential....some people shoot classifiers well and are bad during matches and the opposite holds true for some. It's basically a standard.

Again, I think we can agree that the Classifier is a good test of shooting skill but not a perfect test of shooting skill -- and no test will be perfect. On the other hand, that does not mean that all possible tests are equally imperfect.

A "better" Classifier -- meaning one that better predicts match performance -- would require a concealment garment, would involve much more movement, especially laterally and getting into and out of positions and slicing the pie, would vary distances within a string of fire, and might have fewer long-distance shots from an almost-static position.

[Steve Koski]

Yagreed!

[GMB]

Athletic ability is very much a part of competitive shooting. Solid shooters that have a good level of fitness generally do better at matches than the one’s that are of the couch potato variety. Of course there always exceptions to the rule.

[T Bacus]

Dropping stage three would do a lot toward making the classifier more closely represent match performance. Stage three shots rarely make up more that 10% of a match, and usually less, yet represent 33% of the shots fired in the classifier and for many, more than 50% of their classifier score.

[Strick]

I can say that at the MA level there are a lot of skills in the classifier that translate to match performance. In stage 1 being able to draw quickly, and then transition to the head quickly are need skills, quick reloads are needed skills, transitions, transitions on the heads representing transitions to hard targets, in the mini pres and el pres snapping your head around to find the target quickly mimics getting into a position, shooting on the move, tac reloads, and most importantly accuracy.

All the above are skills that are measured in the classifier and with out them you wont perform well at matches. Running fast and gaming movers can help at matches but rely on that as your only ability to win and when you get to the higher ranks you will see shooters that have the core skills and the gaming aspect as well...............where will that leave you.

[JD45]

One question I have is who set the score required to make Master in SSP at around 98? And CDP at 91?? To me, that is exactly backwards. Shooting a Glock at minor PF is a good bit easier than shooting major .45.

I still can't get past expert with a 1911. The first time I tried the Glock 17, I shot fairly conservative and scored 96.

The same goes for matches. Even if you rule out the 9 vs. 11rd. problem, and the rare third mag in CDP, SSP should outrun CDP all things being equal.

So why did they figure the 7 seconds slower for SSP? Only one guy in a hundred is gonna have a 12lb. DA trigger.

[JD45]

Dropping stage three would do a lot toward making the classifier more closely represent match performance. Stage three shots rarely make up more that 10% of a match, and usually less, yet represent 33% of the shots fired in the classifier and for many, more than 50% of their classifier score.

That is probably the whole truth more than we want to believe. I can't beat a one-legged sharpshooter at state match. But I can shoot a decent stage 3 on the classifier.

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

I can say that at the MA level there are a lot of skills in the classifier that translate to match performance.

I think we all agree that the Classifier does include many skills that do translate to real matches. What it doesn't do is emphasize the same skills to the same degree -- even if we restrict the skills we're looking at to fundamentals and exclude "gaming" skills.

Again, a "better" Classifier -- meaning one that better predicts match performance -- would require a concealment garment, would involve much more movement, especially laterally and getting into and out of positions and slicing the pie, would vary distances within a string of fire, and might have fewer long-distance shots.

[Not-So-Mad Matt]

One question I have is who set the score required to make Master in SSP at around 98? And CDP at 91?? To me, that is exactly backwards. Shooting a Glock at minor PF is a good bit easier than shooting major .45.

My understanding is that the introduction of the so-called safe-action Glock changed SSP dramatically. The SSP division was intended for double-action pistols with much heavier trigger-pulls than the single-action pistols in ESP (or CDP).

[lugnut]

I can say that at the MA level there are a lot of skills in the classifier that translate to match performance.

I think we all agree that the Classifier does include many skills that do translate to real matches. What it doesn't do is emphasize the same skills to the same degree -- even if we restrict the skills we're looking at to fundamentals and exclude "gaming" skills.

Again, a "better" Classifier -- meaning one that better predicts match performance -- would require a concealment garment, would involve much more movement, especially laterally and getting into and out of positions and slicing the pie, would vary distances within a string of fire, and might have fewer long-distance shots.

What you are missing is the fact that matches can vary quite a bit in technical skills. Some matches use all up close and personal targets, some use lots of partials and some have a variety of long shots. Like Stick said- if you have solid core skills (as in the classifier) and you have reasonable experience- you should do well at the top of the pack.

[Mr. B]

One question I have is who set the score required to make Master in SSP at around 98? And CDP at 91?? To me, that is exactly backwards. Shooting a Glock at minor PF is a good bit easier than shooting major .45.

My understanding is that the introduction of the so-called safe-action Glock changed SSP dramatically. The SSP division was intended for double-action pistols with much heavier trigger-pulls than the single-action pistols in ESP (or CDP).

IDPA was created in 1996 or so. The Glock pistol was already well introduced by that time. I can't see how they could have changed anything in SSP, since they were there the whole time.