Of class, foreign shooters, and USPSA Nationals

[Dalmas]

All you need to do is join as an Foreign Member and send in your dues. It may require a rule change to allow a foreign club to set up and shoot our classifer stages. if so, then I'd propose it.

If a country can't shoot our target, then set up the same course with the other target and shoot it. I'd allow that as an alternate.

My $0.02

Jim Norman

I've just done this and I hope that if I send my scores in that they count. I'll soon find out I guess.

[Ron Ankeny]

So, if I am following this thread the first thing we need to do is to throw out the foreign shooters because it is "our" Nationals and they don't belong. Next, we need to get rid of the cheating sandbaggers and make sure everyone has a current classification. That way, when we give a first place prize to the C class winner we will know with certainty that we are truly rewarding mediocrity.

[bgary]

...when we give a first place prize to the C class winner we will know with certainty that we are truly rewarding mediocrity.

Sadly, I think you have nailed the essence of this thing.

When we give a prize to the "top-C" shooter at a Nationals, have we rewarded shooting ability? No.

What we have rewarded is an entirely different skill: "shooting better than the group of shooters whose classification average is less than a certain arbitrary number".

I mean, say it to yourself and see if it makes sense: "I'm the best in the country at shooting an average of 60% or less than the performance of someone who is really good."

Not that we should not recognize class awards. As someone noted in another thread, competition is about seeing how you did against others, and if the *only* person who got an award is the top shooter, the rest of us would get bored pretty rapidly... so we keep track of how we did against our "peers", as a way of tracking progress and rewarding improvement.

But... in my opinion, thats where it comes off the tracks. Because, what we do with the current system, is reward the people who improve skills while making it look like they have *not* improved.

Not sure what I am trying to say... I must be tired. I guess the bottom line is, I like the idea of giving recognition awards. But I hate the idea of "bribing" people to "game the system", which is (IMO) what happens when those awards have monetary value.

Bruce (will *never* win B-class at a Nationals. Trust me.)

[Wakal]

what we do with the current system, is reward the people who improve skills while making it look like they have *not* improved

Very well said.

After reading through three pages of occasionally acrimonious comments and philosophy, I think it kind of goes back to the basic concept "...if you don't have some current classifiers, you get to shoot 'U' at major USPSA matches."

While still able to be gamed a bit, that would seem to be a viable solution to solve the "game the classification" system. Although I also like the "class trophies, but prize table in order of finish" idea. Perhaps both solutions, taken together, would be best.

Alex

PS And I thought I was a bit paranoid about motive at times...but I'm a tyro. I didn't even begin to think of this one:

The classification system is such an important revenue stream to USPSA that arriving at a viable solution to the sand bagging problem could upset that flow of money

But that theory would seem to explain why nothing has been done, despite years of complaints. Amusing

AW

[Jim Norman]

Currently we go to the table Top 16, Class ad division winners then order of finish. What are you proposing to change?

THe only thing I would look at might be rewarding 2nd and third in a class if there are a certain number of shooters in a class, say 5 gets a class win, 12 gets a second place trip and 20 gets a third.

Jim

[Wakal]

Proposed Change Package:

Change One: If a competitor does not have three classifiers in the previous twelve month period, the competitor will be considered "unclassified."

Change Two: Prize table will be order of finish ONLY. No special categories, no class recognition, just first place through last place.

IMO, that takes the best two proposals and makes one big change out of them. The first change takes care of the folks who game the classifiers by carefully not shooting them all year before the Nationals. While still able to be messed with (because "valid classifiers" are not specified), specifying "valid classifiers" isn't workable. Consider the hard charging A trying to make M, or M trying for GM The second change takes all the "profit" (assuming that is the motive for gaming the classifier system behind both sandbagging Americans and foreign nationals) out of gaming the class. A straight order-of-finish line to the prize table gets us closer to the "heads up" game a lot of us seem to want. And makes life easier for the match staff

Opinions?

Alex

[John Dunn]

What makes a classifier valid isn't when it was shot, but the effort put in while shooting it. I am currently A in Limited and B in L-10 (don't get me started on why the higher class doesn't automatically apply to both divisions here). I guarantee that if I were a sandbagging lowlife I could keep my L-10 in the B class range. Just slow down, throw a Mike then kick the dirt and cuss. I don't see that requiring current classifiers solves many problems. The scum will be scummy.

[omnia1911]

Proposed Change Package:

Change One: If a competitor does not have three classifiers in the previous twelve month period, the competitor will be considered "unclassified."

Change Two: Prize table will be order of finish ONLY. No special categories, no class recognition, just first place through last place.

IMO, that takes the best two proposals and makes one big change out of them. The first change takes care of the folks who game the classifiers by carefully not shooting them all year before the Nationals. While still able to be messed with (because "valid classifiers" are not specified), specifying "valid classifiers" isn't workable. Consider the hard charging A trying to make M, or M trying for GM  The second change takes all the "profit" (assuming that is the motive for gaming the classifier system behind both sandbagging Americans and foreign nationals) out of gaming the class. A straight order-of-finish line to the prize table gets us closer to the "heads up" game a lot of us seem to want. And makes life easier for the match staff

Opinions?

Alex

I would be quite content if we removed the class awards (go ahead and post them as part of the results, if you wish to, but no awards or early trips to the prize table associated with them) from competition and went to order of finish in division. I just don't think that USPSA is willing to upset the apple cart due to the importance that the classification system is to its revenues. Sand bagging in competition would be solved.

In exchange for no class awards you might go deeper in the order of finish with the awards; top 5, top 8, etc.

Bruce, why not try this at the '05 or '06 Area 1 match?

[spook]

Some people here are suggesting that some foreign shooters are consciously "cheating the system" What BS!

I know for a fact that most of my (IPSC non-US) shooting friends don't even know their Classification in IPSC, let alone USPSA. Why? Because we don't care. All we want to do is shoot matches and win them....as in: "being number 1".......overall. I don't care for a first place in C-class and I have never shot a big match in Europe that had prices for people ending up lower than 10th place overall, unless they're Lady, Senior or something like that.

I have been reading these forums since the beginning and Classification is a bigger deal to USPSA shooters than it is to IPSC shooters.

I understand that it is not nice to see a shooter that should be GM according to USPSA standards win the top-C-class price. But don't think that the shooter is sandbagging, grandbragging or whatever you call it to get the price without some proper investigation. Most European shooters I know just don't care/know about any classification system at all.

There's a difference between cheating the system and a faulty system. Don't blame shooters that are unaware. That's very unintelligent.

[RIIID]

First off in my post I didn't say non-citizens are not welcome to shoot the Nationals as some have assumed. They are more than welcome to come and play. My whole point is USPSA recognizes the highest US shooter with the title but casts aside citizenship for class winners. There are alot shooters who take alot of pride in getting a trophy from the Nationals. These shooters get very discouraged when a shooter manipulates the system to gain fleeting glory at the prize table. The prize table will never go away because sponsors use product instead of cash. Prize tables only serve to create disscusions like this one and possibly get someone to buy their product.

Rich

P.S. I personally think prize tables should be banned at all matches by USPSA but, it's not going to because of $$$$$$$$$. Lets shoot heads up sandbaggers will die off and so will the classification system but USPSA needs the money.

[Ron Ankeny]

RIIID:

I was just being facetious. I know you would go heads up with any shooter, from any country, any time.

[bgary]

I would be quite content if we removed the class awards (go ahead and post them as part of the results, if you wish to, but no awards or early trips to the prize table associated with them) from competition and went to order of finish in division.

Bruce, why not try this at the '05 or '06 Area 1 match?

I think we're already ahead of the curve...

Area-1 has been a trophy-only match since 1998. Credit for that decision goes to my predecessor, Dave Carruthers, and I think it was a good one.

We also already have a policy that class awards are based on class attendance... the more people there are in a class, the deeper we go with awards.

What we *haven't* done yet, is make it so that only shooters with "current" classifications get class awards, but, in candor, since the prize table went away there really hasn't been much evidence that people have been gaming their classifications at the Area-1. For the most part, it has become a good, high-quality, fairly-competed match.

Bruce

[Jody Waring]

Wherever you are in the world, this game is IPSC. I believe we all should shoot the same classifiers,....period.

DVC

[Ron Ankeny]

I too think we should all shoot the same classifiers. So, do we dump our targets or does the rest of the world change?

[omnia1911]

Bruce,

I think we're already ahead of the curve...

Area-1 has been a trophy-only match since 1998.  Credit for that decision goes to my predecessor, Dave Carruthers, and I think it was a good one.

That is why I thought Area1 might be the first to step forward and make the bold move to nip sandbagging in the bud.

...since the prize table went away there really hasn't been much evidence that people have been gaming their classifications at the Area-1.

..but you said earlier...

...hell, I could point you to whole *clubs* in Area-1, that have what I consider to be an inordinate level of commitment to "managing classifiers" so as to "get something".

Maybe they aren't showing up at their Area Match.

Scanning the Area1 results will find some suspects; last year's Open winner for example.

The past results also show a definite drop off in the number of GM and M shooters at the Area1 Match since the prize table went away starting '98. That may be the trade off.

[Jody Waring]

No need to dump the targets, as the Metric target is still used in several places. I just think that if we shot the same classifiers we would all be on the same level. One thing I am not overly fond of with the ICS is that alot of times you can go to a match, and the match director will put the hardest of the qualifiers into the match, but some that shoot them to just get classified will use the no brainers(pick the easy ones from the list); If everyone shot the SAME stages, we wouldn't have this trouble. It would be really easy to be an A Class shooter, shot C Class ability in the classifier, and clean up at the Nationals in that class. I think no matter what you do , there will be flaws, but the ones that want to do well, and class themselves with other shooters around the world, the ICS is great. I tried hard, but only placed A Canada, and B World. Better luck next year. I do it for myself, not to pocket from prize tables.

[Phil Dunlop]

Ron the ICS classiffiers are availble in both Metric and Classic format. I was going to suggest including a couple in our on line match?

[Ron Ankeny]

Cool, I learned something new today. Down with ignorance. I'll wander over to the IPSC site and check them out.

[omnia1911]

The sand bagging dilemma has been going on for years, with numerous discussions as to what to do about it. So far, the solutions that have been adopted were directed toward mitigation rather than elimination....and the problems continue.

It's not a foreign member problem. As I stated earlier, and was confirmed by a foreign shooter, there isn't much interest or incentive to move up in the USPSA classification system. Requiring a minimum number of classifiers for class awards is a mitigation solution.

It's not just a problem at prize table matches, and it is naive to believe that eliminating the prize tables will rid us of sand bagging. That is a mitigation solution.

The sand baggers are working their way through the club level matches first. Most club matches have neither a prize table or awards, but I can guarantee you that their actions are noticed and unappreciated by the other shooters. What do you think this does to the new shooter that is honestly trying to work his way up in class and has to see others sand bagging the system? I think they will become discouraged and disillusioned about the sport. They may even stop shooting IPSC matches. Now that would be the real shame.

It is time to move beyond mitigating the problem and move to eliminate it all together.

[Phil Dunlop]

Without prizes I don't really see whats to gain or to loose from sandbagging. Obviously there is no way we will ever have a perfect grading system, so temper the kudos of a grade win accordingly.

My match performance is all that is important to me, not the often dubious titles the grading system infers.

[omnia1911]

Without prizes I don't really see whats to gain or to loose from sandbagging. Obviously there is no way we will ever have a perfect grading system, so temper the kudos of a grade win accordingly.

My match performance is all that is important to me, not the often dubious titles the grading system infers.

The least that the sand bagger enjoys is having his name called for placing in class. The most he has to gain is winning a nice prize from the table.

I understand that the thrill of having your name called for a class placement doesn't do much for some shooters, but the sand bagger feeds off of this stuff, and will play the system to get the attention. It is a very different psychological approach to the game than someone who just shoots for their own personal accomplishments.

[Dalmas]

USPSA just got another FOREIGN member.. Looking forward to my first issue of Front Sight

[Dead Buff]

I was thinking of that...but after all this.......

I'll stick to IPSC, shoot for 1st place and end where I deserve to be

[Liota]

Thanks for joining, Dalmas!

DB, go ahead and join USPSA. You can still compete for first. I do it every match. Winning one's class is nice, but winning the match is the ultimate goal.

[Dead Buff]

And if I do (whats the chance ), by the above posts I can tell all I did, but an US national/Green Card holder will be the "winner"???

I'm not like that, just making a point...I haven't seen one IPSC match where your class was even asked or important (there might be some I don't know about...). Do not blame foreign shooters for a flawed US system.

Yes, cheaters must be severely beaten and kicked until they come to their senses or disappear - which ever comes first. Do not however start a little apartheid thing - we here know all about that...