Of class, foreign shooters, and USPSA Nationals

[Wakal]

Sandbagging has always been an annoyance, but it seems that foreign competitors at the USPSA Nationals have increased this to an art form. All kudos to Eric and Mike, showing up with a GM (or U, as Mike did) card, kicking ass and taking names, but look down the list a bit. Notice particularly the C-Class Open shooters. In 2003, C-Open was won by a foreign national at 74 overall (the number two C-Open was back at 154 overall). Said FN hadn't shot a classifier since 6/23/2001. He would have taken second in B (at 13 match points back from the top "B").

That wasn't quite so bad.

This year, I noticed the same thing.

The 2004 top C-Open, at 28 overall, hasn't shot a Open classifer in two years (although he did shoot a Limited classifier a year ago). The second C-Open, at 46 overall, was the same FN who won C-Open so handily the year before. The two FNs would have been 2 and 3 "A", or 1 and 2 "B".

(NOTE: I didn't look at the other divisions, just Open, after I recognized the FN from last year's match)

I talked about this with my Area Director. During the discussion, some ideas to resolve the problem of international sandbagging came up.

1. Mandate 6 classifiers during the previous 12 month period, or else shoot "U".

2. Mandate 3 "scored" classifiers during the previous 12 month period, or else shoot "U".

3. Set up a "Foreign" class, and all non-USPSA members shoot for top International (as they do already) instead of class wins.

Sandbagging is bad enough, but international sandbagging seems to be in a (ahem) class by itself. Either option 1 or 2 would solve some US sandbagging (especially "2") as well, but "3" seems the easiest to implement.

Discuss?

Alex

[Matthew_Mink]

FYI, a Foreign C class dude won a stage in Production.

[mpolans]

I understand the problem, but I don't think there would be any solution that wouldn't result in most foreign shooters being U.

I'm betting USPSA classifiers just aren't shot very often overseas.

[TriggerT]

That argument has two sides (and I'm not saying you aren't right about sandbaggers). What calss are any of us in IPSC? I haven't ever shot any IPSC classifiers, so I would assume I would be "U." Where would I even go to shoot IPSC classifiers before I would go to a match outside the US?

[Wakal]

That is the point. THERE ARE NO IPSC CLASSIFIERS... They shoot heads-up (which is a whole different thread topic). Only USPSA has a classification system; the rest of the world just shoots for the big prize

Foreign Nationals who manage to run just enough to get a low classification, then show up in the US and take a Class win, are the issue at hand. In the interest of full disclosure, I must admit that I won 2/C at the USPSA Nationals 2003, and then ended up with a A card four months later. Yet, a year later the FN who took 1/C is still in C...oddly enough...

How do we fix this? Although it is my (and quite a few other Forumites) opinion that the whole classification system be thrown out in favour of an "order of finish" thing, I don't think that will play out. My SC came up with what I thought were three decent suggestions, but I wanted to run the subject by the most concentrated group of talented shooters and deep thinkers I know.

Alex

[BritinUSA]

You can shoot IPSC classifiers anywhere you want...

For more details go here, you need to set yourself up with an alias and then you can see your results on the ipsc web pages...

IPSC Classifier FAQ

[Phil Dunlop]

We are just getting to grips with IPSC's ICS classifiers here in New Zealand. It gives us a local and international grade and allows us to use the Classic targets.

I'd guess that its just a matter of time before the system gets going.

[Ron Rodgers]

If you aren't shooting USPSA classifiers, you shouldn't have a USPSA classification.

I think the suggestions Alex made would certainly minimize the sandbagging problem.

[AikiDale]

I just can't see this as a problem. Everyone shoots faster or slower than everyone else. Who cares what their 'classification' is? I come at this from a martial arts background. There is a rainbow of colored belts and a plethora of black belt degrees out there, but you can't bullshit on the mat. I am more interested in what someone can do than their paper rank. The USPSA classification system is a good indicator of where one stands in the scheme of things, if one chooses not to cheat oneself when shooting the classifiers. Other than that it has no meaning. IMNSHO. YMMV.

[Vince Pinto]

Hi guys,

For those who are interested, IPSC operates a "two tier" Classification System, whereby each person who shoots the requisite number of classifers gets both a Regional and an International grading.

To see this in action, go to the "Your Classification" page on the IPSC website, enter the alias eric and click the "submit" button. When the results are displayed, you'll see that Eric (Grauffel) is a GM in France and Internationally in Open, Standard & Production Divisions. On the other hand, if you enter joseph, you'll see that he is an M grade in Hong Kong but only a C grade internationally.

You'll also note that a number of major matches are used for classification purposes, which means your grading is affected by unrehearsed "shoot on demand" stages.

As far as USPSA members are concerned, IPSC agreed some time ago to accept USPSA Classifications "as is" for IPSC purposes, but I believe IPSC is still waiting for the relevant information (database?).

[Shooter Grrl]

Sorry Alex - I don't see it as an issue at all. They followed the rules, they paid their entry fee and they shot the match, just like all the rest of us.

Winning your class at the Nationals doesn't get you anything anyways... I would bet real dollars that these guys came to compete heads up, just like they do at home.

[Dead Buff]

And another point, that probably applies to very few, is the financial resources, or rather the lack thereof, to submit classifiers. Our complete annual budget is blown on affiliating to IPSC and with the exchange rates, etc none of us can afford to submit classifiers. We are not the only region in this predicament.

By the way - how do you check a shooters class.? By taking his word, checking the IPSC/USPSA webpage, the card he has with him?

IMHO - if its not on one of the two webpages (USPSA for US shoots, IPSC for rest) you shoot U. If you win the match, congrats!

[Neil Beverley]

Only USPSA has a classification system; the rest of the world just shoots for the big prize 

Alex

The UK operates a clasification system with competitors being graded: M, A, B, C, D and Open. Open being the same as US "U".

However, we don't employ classifiers. Our system is to average the results of a number of Level II and Level III matches that are shot in a competition year.

For new shooters they are graded after their first 3 matches even if in 2 competition years. Otherwise grades are analysed at the end of each season and a minimum of 3 matches need to have been shot to change a grade, preferably more. If a competitor shoots 4 - 7 matches they can drop their worst result and then the others are averaged. If they shoot 8 or more matches they drop their worst 2 results. This deals with any possible major match screw ups such as a stage wipe out as a result of a malfunction. We ignore any matches where a competitor has a DQ. The grade system is to analyse shooting ability and to classify them based on that. A malfunction or a DQ would distort the results. A match is declared void for classification puposes if it is not attended by at least 2 M grade shooters or 1 M grade + 4 As. This isn't really ever an issue but it does set a minimum standard and if this isn't met the match doesn't count.

I like the system because it assesses ability in match conditions across a wide range of stages. All results are referenced to the best achievements on the day at that match. It automatically adjusts for wind, rain, sleet, snow, mud, tempests and plagues of locuses.

I must confess I'm not a fan of published classifiers because it enables a shooter to practice the hell out of them whereas I personally believe that stages and matches should constantly be changed and I believe in Rule 1.1.4 - "<snip> no single course of fire must be repeated to allow its use to be considered a definitive measure of IPSC shooting skills."

However, I also like to think I'm a realist. I accept that in a smaller geographical Region such as the UK our system can work. In the US it would be much more difficult if not impossible to use any other system than classifiers. Likewise for a world wide classification this can only be calculated via classifiers. I therefore absolutely accept that classifiers are here to stay and need to be employed.

It would certainly mean that the UK grades would be useless in the US and UK shooters should be slotted in as "U" shooters.

[ong45]

Fyi, winning your class at nationals gets you to the prize table right after the top 16

James

[Dead Buff]

Neil, in a roundabout way, described why I don't like classifiers. They are all speed shoot CoF's. Yes, it would be extremely difficult to build field CoF's for classifiers, but as pointed out in this and various other threads - a speed shoot classification does not necessarily show that shooters overall IPSC classification in a real match.

For this reason I have started this thread. By having a idea of what the average hit factors are of GM, M, A, B, C, D shooters, it is easies for me to place our local guys. From the little info I have, the HF's for a, say A shooter, are about the same for a medium and long CoF in a real match. The speed shoots seem to be a bit higher (unless a oops happens). The average HF from matches might be a more realistic reflection of true abilities.

And then again....I'm gonna be proven wrong on this fast....

[Skywalker]

Great post Neil!

My exact feelings, and very same method we use here in Italy.

I like the system because it assesses ability in match conditions across a wide range of stages. All results are referenced to the best achievements on the day at that match. It automatically adjusts for wind, rain, sleet, snow, mud, tempests and plagues of locuses.

Moreover, I always felt that classifiers are in clear breach of rule 1.1.4:

1.1.4 Diversity – IPSC shooting challenges are diverse. While it is not necessary to construct new courses for each match, no single course of fire must be repeated to allow its use to be considered a definitive measure of IPSC shooting skills.

But I've been explained that this applies to match stages and standings only, not to a classification system...

[Neil Beverley]

Deadbuff

Perhaps I should have added that we average the match percentages (not HFs) then at the end of the year we grade as follows:

M = 92% +

A = 75.00% - 91.99%

B = 65.00% - 74.99%

C = 55.00% - 64.99%

D = 54.99 or less

There are some discussions at the moment to lift the threshold for A grade because we are finding an imbalance in this grade.

Luca

I think we need to accept that for some Regions classifiers are the only way to go. It is my personal preference for the UK system and in the main it gives a reasonable result. I ask that nobody reads my posts on this subject as an attack on the system (I hastily add before I get any hate mail ), I'm merely advising on a different system and adding my personal preference.

IMHO in larger Regions such as the US a huge great many guys would not get anything like a sensible grade unles they could shoot matches head to head with the top US GMs. Initially the UK system could work for a while but there would be a slow deterioration in the results and eventually the classifications from state to state would see a disparity across the grades.

From IPSC Region to Region I can't think of any better system. Unfortunately.

Barry Pollard, who sometimes frequents these forums, also has a problem with the consistency of some of the classifiers but then no system is perfect.

[Skywalker]

Neil, I'm not jeopardizing the system too.

I simply stated my personal preference (that by pure incident happens to concide with yours), and the response I got. I'll live with the rules, even if in this case I have a different opinion on what's best.

In Italy the system you described is pretty much applicable, because the average score is calculated on league matches, where attendance grants a minimum of 3 national-level GMs and several Ms. Whenever this doesn't happen, we have corrective factors added to the match results to average the scores. Moreover, all league matches have the same 10-stages, 180 (more or less) rounds, 3-4-3 Long-Medium-Short Courses ratio.

Your points on applicability of this system to regions such as the US are clear, understood and shareable. I can understand that whenever the regional top shooters are not attending all matches, this system would eventually lead to inconsistencies in classification among different sections.

Nonetheless, I still think that the presented classification system (in those regions where this is applicable) better represents overall skills and match capabilities for competitors, instead of classifiers.

I can see something going in this direction with the inclusion of classifier matches in the ICS, and I like it.

[Dead Buff]

We have a very similar system here in Nam compared to Britain. Our shooters get classified according to the average of the 3 highest of the 4 nationals we shoot every year.

The classifications are still based on a system from old, but we do not want to change it...untill we find something better.

A: 80-100%

B: 60-79%

C: 40-59%

D: 0-39%

U: Until enough data has been gathered.

Currently I do not want M and GM class. here, since none of our shooters are even close (I think). Thats why I want to compare HF's from a Representative sample group from real matches to our database. This will enable me to show local skill compared to international standards and get out of the "big fish in small pond syndrome".

[schoonie]

Hey, it's not only about Foriegn Nationals shooting above class, us B class limited shooters at the nationals got waxed by a gringo (I think) who also beat the best A.

Is it bye bye B class for him?????

With participants in an international match coming from different classification systems the solution to equitable classes requires a handicapping process. I haven't got a clue how to find the common ground because I have not participated in a match outside of the USA, but surely someone could.

IMHO past match performance should be more heavily factored into one's class ranking, maybe using a multiplier factor for the various levels of matches.

[shred]

I'm a "B" in IPSC and M in USPSA. What do I sign up as where?

Wait.. but at my last (and only) international match I beat 2 IPSC GM's that are USPSA M's..

[bgary]

Winning your class at the Nationals doesn't get you anything anyways...

Winning your class at the Nationals gets you an early trip to the prize table.

Which, for some, provides an [apparently] irresistable incentive to cheat... uh... I mean, "excel at the game of classifier management".

My own suspicion is that we will have the problem as long as we provide that financial incentive.

Bruce

[PhilTerry]

I suggested a method to correct some of these anomolies which was published in the September/October 1999 issue of Front Sight! In that letter I proposed that before the match results are finalized there should be a classification review - anybody shooting more than the mid-point average of a class would be instantly reclassified - for example if a supposed C class shooter has a match percentage greater than 67.5% they would be reclassified as B class before the final match results were announced.

The proposal did not get much response.

[Vince Pinto]

Winning your class at the Nationals gets you an early trip to the prize table. Which, for some, provides an [apparently] irresistable incentive to cheat... uh... I mean, "excel at the game of classifier management". My own suspicion is that we will have the problem as long as we provide that financial incentive.

Bingo-bango. At the end of the day it's all about prize tables, which are The Root Of All Evil when it comes to classifications. If you kill off prize tables, nobody would give a damn about anybody else's classification, even if it was the result of "sandbagging", "grandbagging" or divine intervention.

If people want to shoot for prizes, they should go to Coney Island.

(If anybody needs me, I'll be in my bunker)

[Shipster]

My own suspicion is that we will have the problem as long as we provide that financial incentive.

Bruce

Bruce hit the nail right on the head, as long as there is monitary incentive to cheet you will always have this problem... IMHO Trophies and ribbons would eliminate a lot of sand bagging or as Bruce put it "classifier management"..