Classifier Strategy

[a matt]

IMHO, the last thing you want is to make GM so fast that you can beat you way out of a wet p

From what I understand, you can move down in Class but it's not easy. The only Classifiers that will count in your average now are 55% and above (5% rule). If 6 of last 8 average below your current class, you drop down to a C. So, put together a string of scores between 55% and 59.999% and you get a new card.

No you don't, even if your average should drop. The only to move down in class (get a C card after having been a B shooter) is to petition USPSA HQ with your MD/SC support. In order for me to consider supporting such a request, I'd need a reason and some time to analyze your match results....

I think I've written one letter supporting a downgrade -- and that competitor health, mobility and ability improved during the following year and got the competitor promoted again.

Agreed, I would think you would need a strong reason to ask to be drop back. Thanks

[ktm300]

I shoot classifiers just like I shoot the rest of the stages. Look at it, figure out a plan, try to shoot A's as fast as I can. Trying to go fast or slow just screws me up.

[blaster113]

Easier said then done, but I agree with the sentiment to just shoot the classifier like it was another stage; to the best of your ability regarding speed/accuracy. When you stress yourself out or try to push too hard on a classifier is when you or more likely to crash and burn. I've found this out the hard way. Some classifiers have ridiculously high HFs, others are realistic.

I've heard of and seen so called "paper GM's", guys who will intentionally shoot classifiers over and over until they get an awesome run, then send in the score sheet. I've also been to several major matches where it people do not finish with a score in their class. In other words Masters shoot A class scores, A class guys shoot B scores, etc. I think its simply the nature of the classification system, which in my opinion is not perfect but should be left as is. I have an A card and can keep up with the other A card guys at majors for most stages, but my scores end up in the B %. Performance on classifiers and performance at major matches are two different things. Classifiers are a measure of skill but are not guranteed indicators of performance on match day.

[lugnut]

I've also been to several major matches where it people do not finish with a score in their class. In other words Masters shoot A class scores, A class guys shoot B scores, etc. I think its simply the nature of the classification system, which in my opinion is not perfect but should be left as is. I have an A card and can keep up with the other A card guys at majors for most stages, but my scores end up in the B %. Performance on classifiers and performance at major matches are two different things. Classifiers are a measure of skill but are not guranteed indicators of performance on match day.

I was talking to a buddy about this "phenomenon" yesterday. But it's really not that much of a surprise that many Masters shoot below 85%, As shoot below 75%, etc. GM is 95% and above. When you shoot a major match with Sevigny, Michel or Miguez as an example- your shooting against someone that is likely much higher than 100%. The pushes everyone down.

I posted in this thread earlier- but the more and more I shoot- the more and more I realize that the ONLY thing that means anything is match performance. And that is usually a measure of your over all skills.

[Poppa Bear]

It would also be different if some of the older classifiers were adjusted for current performance. Some will have a HF of 11 needed to make 100%, and GM shooters who are producing HF's of 12 or better now.

So when the true top GM's shoot a match it is possible to get a 100% on your classifier, and an 85 to 90% as your match % for that stage just because the GM shot it at 120%.

[RaylanGivens]

It would also be different if some of the older classifiers were adjusted for current performance. Some will have a HF of 11 needed to make 100%, and GM shooters who are producing HF's of 12 or better now.

So when the true top GM's shoot a match it is possible to get a 100% on your classifier, and an 85 to 90% as your match % for that stage just because the GM shot it at 120%.

Wouldn't the GM's new 120% classifier score become the current 100% score for future matches?

[Ron Ankeny]

Classifiers are a measure of skill but are not guranteed indicators of performance on match day.

Classifiers measure performance on classifiers, period. At one time I could stand and deliver classifier scores in the 85%-100% range, cold and on demand, day in and day out, simply because I had a decent draw, good transitions, monster splits, and superb vision. But...my movement skills were terrible and efficiency wasn't even in my vocabulary. My match skills were B class at best. Should I have sandbagged the classifiers to avoid the stigma of being labeled a paper this or paper that?

As far as moving down, I moved down to A class from GM class because of physical issues. Last summer I shot a Production classifier at a local club match with a borrowed gun and gear that I was testing before a potential purchase. The classifier was the Mini-Mart. The score came in at 99% and change, moving me back up to Master, even though the score only measured my ability to hose from a solid index with a borrowed gun. The system is what it is... Just shoot honest scores and let the chips fall where they may.

[Poppa Bear]

Mini Mart is one of the classifiers with an easy 100% HF. The 06- xx and 08- xx classifiers are better measures of ability that more closely mirror overall performance.

[flack jacket]

Welcome to your lifelong passion.

As I have progressed in this sport my shooting partners and I gauge personal performance at major match. Remember, classifiers is scored on the curve. That's why Comstock scoring is great since it's based on the highest score (HF) attained in that division. Let's say you shoot Nationals, the best in the nation, let alone the world is shooting that match. Pick your division and after the match look at your percentage against the top shooter in that division. IE: I shot Open last year, so my percentage was based against Grauffel overall. Humbling indeed!

Local matches? You are the Grauffel / Eusebio / Sevigny / Vogel/ Leathams of the match/ division. Helps the ego, but not a good gauge.

Competition is what brings me back. I fortunately have a Top 10 in the Nation GM I shoot against weekly.

[Bunchies95]

Welcome to your lifelong passion.

As I have progressed in this sport my shooting partners and I gauge personal performance at major match. Remember, classifiers is scored on the curve. That's why Comstock scoring is great since it's based on the highest score (HF) attained in that division. Let's say you shoot Nationals, the best in the nation, let alone the world is shooting that match. Pick your division and after the match look at your percentage against the top shooter in that division. IE: I shot Open last year, so my percentage was based against Grauffel overall. Humbling indeed!

Local matches? You are the Grauffel / Eusebio / Sevigny / Vogel/ Leathams of the match/ division. Helps the ego, but not a good gauge.

Competition is what brings me back. I fortunately have a Top 10 in the Nation GM I shoot against weekly.

Ummm....you do know that Comstock is just a scoring method for a stage, right (i.e. unlimited rounds)? There is also Virginia Count (fixed rounds) and Fixed Time (Fixed rounds and time).

I get what you are trying to say though. Classifiers are scored on a curve, much like tests. But there is always that one guy who screws up the curve by actually studying.

[flack jacket]

Welcome to your lifelong passion.

As I have progressed in this sport my shooting partners and I gauge personal performance at major match. Remember, classifiers is scored on the curve. That's why Comstock scoring is great since it's based on the highest score (HF) attained in that division. Let's say you shoot Nationals, the best in the nation, let alone the world is shooting that match. Pick your division and after the match look at your percentage against the top shooter in that division. IE: I shot Open last year, so my percentage was based against Grauffel overall. Humbling indeed!

Local matches? You are the Grauffel / Eusebio / Sevigny / Vogel/ Leathams of the match/ division. Helps the ego, but not a good gauge.

Competition is what brings me back. I fortunately have a Top 10 in the Nation GM I shoot against weekly.

Ummm....you do know that Comstock is just a scoring method for a stage, right (i.e. unlimited rounds)? There is also Virginia Count (fixed rounds) and Fixed Time (Fixed rounds and time).

I get what you are trying to say though. Classifiers are scored on a curve, much like tests. But there is always that one guy who screws up the curve by actually studying.

Your are right.. I only offered part of my point. comstock and virginia scoring is based on HF in which shooter earns points. Thus, the curve. Thanks for keeping me honest.

[cnote]

I compare major match finishes versus my classifier %. For me, they have been close for the last year or so. As my classifier % has gone up over time, so has my major match finishes .

I also have a friend who I occasionally beat in a local who is leaps beyond my finish at a major. He is more consistent over multiple stages and makes less mistakes. He experiments at locals. I have accepted the fact that today, he is a better shooter. Trying to change that in the future.

[PKT1106]

After you read all that above, remember that there is only one other socially acceptable way to shoot a classifier........GRIP IT AND RIP IT!!!

...adapted from Tin Cup.

[Ron Ankeny]

Mini Mart is one of the classifiers with an easy 100% HF. The 06- xx and 08- xx classifiers are better measures of ability that more closely mirror overall performance.

Maybe I can call Val and have her remove my scores from the classifiers that are too easy.

[djthemac]

just shot a local match, i shot very consistently throughout. my goals in practice this week were to focus on slowing down for mid to long range shots, and i only melted down on one stage :-)

the classifier was 3- v 03-04. it looked relatively straightforward but the no shoots krept it interesting. i shot it slowly and carefully and got 2nd place to a grand master. everyone else was 5 seconds faster or so but were hitting no shoots mikes etc. so i faced another connundrum, do better overall in the match with a slower classifier score, or rip it, risk zeroing the stage and doing worse in the match. i ended up 2 out of 5 in large part due to my classifier score. hmmm...