Classifier HHF Determination

[Chris iliff]

I don't want to beat this horse, I've read enough threads on this already. But, talking to CB45 tonight got me thinking about classifiers and exactly how HHF is determined. I don't want to go off on a tangent, so I'll leave the exact classifier out of the discussion.

Suffice to say, after ten years at this sport, I think some of these classifiers have a HHF that is ridiculously high. So high, that I think, as I know we all have surmised, that some people set them up and shoot the pee pee out of them until the HHF is crazy.

Anyway, the point of this particular thread is I thought that I might have a solution for these shenanigans.

And that would be.............

How hard would it be to bounce the USPSA member #, basically those members that post the best HF's, off a database and EXCLUDE any HF posted by a shooter that has never won a bigger type match? Or, if that is too restrictive, maybe eliminate members that do not have 5 years of membership. Or, only include HF's posted by members who have shot 5 or more majors, regardless of finish. There are many possible ways to filter the HHF's. I just named some, I'm sure one, or some combo of those, would eliminate most of the "spray and pray" and "shoot it till you get it" crowd from jacking up the HHF.

Anyway it's just a thought. I've heard people say that running up the HHF was a problem on some classifiers and this seems to be fairly common knowledge and accepted as fact. If it is, something simple like above would probably take care of it. The idea being that serious type competitors don't purposely game classifiers because they understand the true intent and are themselves, true sportsman.

Any thoughts?

[fishsticks]

While I believe this can and does happen, it doesn't bother me much. The truest test is placement at major matches. Classifier scores have value if you shoot them as intended (not gaming them to get a higher hf). As an example I'm right in the middle of "c" based on my classifier scores. At area 1 I shot +/- right at that for the match overall. A so called paper gm doesn't prove much, at least in my humble opinion.

[juan]

what iff the hhf was only determined at a major ?

how many would be willing to tank a stage at a major match trying to blow out the hhf

Edited June 27, 2013 by juan

[kosh79]

The problem I see with the ways your looking to restrict the reporting is it will alienate new shooters, like me who just started last sept and have only shot 1 major match. I know I probably won't be shooting another one for a few years cause of my job and time restrictions. Sorry I just think its a bad idea. We want to bring more shooters into the sport, not tell them hey jack you can't post up cause you just joined

[bagdad45]

While I believe this can and does happen, it doesn't bother me much. The truest test is placement at major matches. Classifier scores have value if you shoot them as intended (not gaming them to get a higher hf). As an example I'm right in the middle of "c" based on my classifier scores. At area 1 I shot +/- right at that for the match overall. A so called paper gm doesn't prove much, at least in my humble opinion.

+1 I shoot the classifier like I would any stage in a match. Could I have a higher classification if I reshot it several times, sure. But I want to be classified where I shoot. Any grief I get from the locals about where I finish in local matches I point straight to where I finished in the last Area 2, Western States Siingle Stack or Nationals, 55 to 57% of the match winner. What is my classification in the divisions I shoot C, 53 to 58% depending on the division.

I am more worried about people sandbagging the classifiers,not elevating their scores.

Edited June 27, 2013 by bagdad45

[Nik Habicht]

FWIW, a lot of the 03, 06, and 08 series classifiers were shot as stages at Nationals and Area matches -- and had the HHF set on those stages....

So, at least some of the more recent classifiers reflect real world performance, not shooting something ad nauseam....

[jrbet83]

FWIW, a lot of the 03, 06, and 08 series classifiers were shot as stages at Nationals and Area matches -- and had the HHF set on those stages....

So, at least some of the more recent classifiers reflect real world performance, not shooting something ad nauseam....

THIS! The longer you shoot and the more you shoot with great shooters, you'll see the HHF isn't some unattainable number. As an example, I just went back and checked the last three majors I shot and the HHF (stage winner) for the classifier was over 100% (I just checked Limited, because that's what I shoot). If you think HHF is being set my "spray and pray" paper GM's....your wrong. They're being set by the best shooters in the country and alot of times at the biggest matches in the country......... exactly as the system was designed to do.

[Chris iliff]

The problem I see with the ways your looking to restrict the reporting is it will alienate new shooters, like me who just started last sept and have only shot 1 major match. I know I probably won't be shooting another one for a few years cause of my job and time restrictions. Sorry I just think its a bad idea. We want to bring more shooters into the sport, not tell them hey jack you can't post up cause you just joined

Hmmm, don't agree with you. I guess the opposite is true, then...... Who wants to be in a sport where the determining factor is fudge by some screwball.

Just trying to figure out how to eliminate one problem, that's all. Maybe it is just an urban legend and most people have it wrong? No one does what I describe above? Hmmm.

[Chris iliff]

FWIW, a lot of the 03, 06, and 08 series classifiers were shot as stages at Nationals and Area matches -- and had the HHF set on those stages....

So, at least some of the more recent classifiers reflect real world performance, not shooting something ad nauseam....

This is what I truly hope happens.

I personally don't feel that impacted. I just thought it was a problem to be addressed as I've heard about it happening and the general consensus is it does happen. Sooooooo........ I offered a solution. That's all.

[sperman]

I'm sure the HHF have been adjusted from time to time, but my guess it is a rare occurrence, and not based on one shooter having a super run. I'm sure there are guys who shoot the crap out of classifiers in an attempt to Grand-Bag, but I doubt it affects the HHF.

[MarkCO]

There are a few like you are indicating. For instance, Can you count 06-03. We have run this one a few times. Most recently only because it fit in with a theme. We have some top GMs, guys who have finished in the top 16 at Nationals and top 3 at Area matches and have several 100% classifiers. These are guys who can run 0.1 splits to boot! The HIGHEST percentage any of them have shot on this is like 82%. I just went and looked at scores for one of them and he has shot this classifier 6 times as a GM, from 72% to 81%. I think the HHF on 06-03 is very suspect. There are about 5 others like that as well. I usually just avoid running them at matches because classifier scores are important to some of our shooters.

I will say that the more I shoot, the less I care about classifiers and classification in general.

[sperman]

I will say that the more I shoot, the less I care about classifiers and classification in general.

I agree.

[Chris iliff]

There are a few like you are indicating. For instance, Can you count 06-03. We have run this one a few times. Most recently only because it fit in with a theme. We have some top GMs, guys who have finished in the top 16 at Nationals and top 3 at Area matches and have several 100% classifiers. These are guys who can run 0.1 splits to boot! The HIGHEST percentage any of them have shot on this is like 82%. I just went and looked at scores for one of them and he has shot this classifier 6 times as a GM, from 72% to 81%. I think the HHF on 06-03 is very suspect. There are about 5 others like that as well. I usually just avoid running them at matches because classifier scores are important to some of our shooters.

I will say that the more I shoot, the less I care about classifiers and classification in general.

Thanks, I agree that I don't think it is a problem across the board. I also agree that I care less after 10 years.

But, I'm of the opinion that if it is happening I would like to minimize the effect. If it can be done simply.

I'd like to hear more about some that people think are suspect. Maybe that's a good place to start?

Edited June 27, 2013 by Chris iliff

[bbbean]

There are a few like you are indicating. For instance, Can you count 06-03. We have run this one a few times. Most recently only because it fit in with a theme. We have some top GMs, guys who have finished in the top 16 at Nationals and top 3 at Area matches and have several 100% classifiers. These are guys who can run 0.1 splits to boot! The HIGHEST percentage any of them have shot on this is like 82%. I just went and looked at scores for one of them and he has shot this classifier 6 times as a GM, from 72% to 81%. I think the HHF on 06-03 is very suspect. There are about 5 others like that as well. I usually just avoid running them at matches because classifier scores are important to some of our shooters.

I will say that the more I shoot, the less I care about classifiers and classification in general.

+1 on both points. I've talked with several shooters in the B-M range about 06-03, and the consensus is that we'd love to see video of a 100% run, because that would be some damned impressive shooting and reloading!

By the same token, though, once you've shot for a year or two, you've got enough classifiers and matches on your record that the occasional classifier that seems too hard or too easy doesn't make enough difference to complain about. A system that works 90% of the time is a system that works.

[Chris iliff]

A system that works 90% of the time is a system that works.

Why settle? If it could be an easy fix, fix it. I want no part of the sport I love to be suspect. Period.

That is my whole point. For me, I'm gonna make GM whether they fix this percieved problem or not. I do care about every aspect of my sport being legit. If something can be fixed, fix it.

I posed the thread to see if we are dealing with an urban legend or as some claim, a real problem, albeit small. Other than an occasional WTF is up with that HF? I love our system.

I guess I would constantly strive for improvement in the system. After 20 years in a manufacturing

Environment I guess it's drilled into me, lol.

[CB45]

Looking at 06-03, it breaks down like:

0.8s draw

4 shots @ .15 splits = 0.6s

1s reload

4 shots @ .15 splits = 0.6s

Total 3s. Its a hoser classifier. 16.6HHF

I believe the top level competitors are capable of it.

Edited June 27, 2013 by CB45

[MarkCO]

Looking at 06-03, it breaks down like:

0.8s draw

4 shots @ .15 splits = 0.6s

1s reload

4 shots @ .15 splits = 0.6s

Total 3s. Its a hoser classifier. 16.6HHF

I believe the top level competitors are capable of it.

Yes, but look closer. 06-03, for Production, Lim10, Limited, SS and Open ALL have the exact same HHF. Are we to believe that 5 GMs in different divisions (heck even the same guy) ran IDENTICAL times. Phooey!

[Thomas H]

There are a few like you are indicating. For instance, Can you count 06-03. We have run this one a few times. Most recently only because it fit in with a theme. We have some top GMs, guys who have finished in the top 16 at Nationals and top 3 at Area matches and have several 100% classifiers. These are guys who can run 0.1 splits to boot! The HIGHEST percentage any of them have shot on this is like 82%. I just went and looked at scores for one of them and he has shot this classifier 6 times as a GM, from 72% to 81%. I think the HHF on 06-03 is very suspect. There are about 5 others like that as well. I usually just avoid running them at matches because classifier scores are important to some of our shooters.

I will say that the more I shoot, the less I care about classifiers and classification in general.

Thanks, I agree that I don't think it is a problem across the board. I also agree that I care less after 10 years.

But, I'm of the opinion that if it is happening I would like to minimize the effect. If it can be done simply.

I'd like to hear more about some that people think are suspect. Maybe that's a good place to start?

The thing is, unless you know where the HHF came from, you can't say the issue is a set of people who are practicing it until they get a score that is unrealistic for most people.

06-03 is an interesting example: In Production, the HHF is about 16.6389. That means a 0.85 draws and 1.0 reloads (each of those twice) and .144 splits 16 times.

I'm sure there are some people out there who can do this--those numbers, at those distances, aren't impossible. That being said, Stoeger, Leatham, Mink, Sevigny, and Vogel have never gotten a GM score on this classifier in any division. Miculek, in 2006, managed a 95%. Once. (His other one in 2007 got an 83%.)

So I, too, wonder where the HHF factor for that one can from. However, without any actual information I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that someone out there just practiced and practiced this and then ran it in a match until they got a number they liked. (And as someone has said---the HHF for that classifier is the same for all divisions.)

Do we have any information that this type of practice=insane HHF actually occurs? Is there any information that HHFs are actually changed due to single, one-time results from club matches?

[CB45]

Ya that's suspect... I'd believe they are close...

no reason why prd/lim/lim10/SS would be at a disadvantage on this classifier.

[JakeMartens]

There are some that need to get tossed and new ones added with the HHF coming from a Major Lvl 3 match

[MarkCO]

So I, too, wonder where the HHF factor for that one can from. However, without any actual information I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that someone out there just practiced and practiced this and then ran it in a match until they got a number they liked. (And as someone has said---the HHF for that classifier is the same for all divisions.)

Revolver HHF is in the 12 range.

With all the other 5 division HHFs being the same, that is odd, with the top GMs not being able to get a GM score, that is odd. I am not jumping to any conclusions either, but my "investigator" light goes off when I see these kinds of oddities. On the converse, there are a few classifiers where I believe the HHF is too low, and I avoid these as well.

Kim, Kyle, Chris, Troy...any insights?

[motosapiens]

Does anyone actually know how the HHF is set? And does it ever change? or just stay static forever? I'm not very smart, but I did major in applied math and statistics, and it would seem rational to not just use the 'best' time, but rather some kind of average of the best few percent of times, and discard any bizarrely unrealistic outliers.

[Ben Stoeger]

There are a few like you are indicating. For instance, Can you count 06-03. We have run this one a few times. Most recently only because it fit in with a theme. We have some top GMs, guys who have finished in the top 16 at Nationals and top 3 at Area matches and have several 100% classifiers. These are guys who can run 0.1 splits to boot! The HIGHEST percentage any of them have shot on this is like 82%. I just went and looked at scores for one of them and he has shot this classifier 6 times as a GM, from 72% to 81%. I think the HHF on 06-03 is very suspect. There are about 5 others like that as well. I usually just avoid running them at matches because classifier scores are important to some of our shooters.

I will say that the more I shoot, the less I care about classifiers and classification in general.

Thanks, I agree that I don't think it is a problem across the board. I also agree that I care less after 10 years.

But, I'm of the opinion that if it is happening I would like to minimize the effect. If it can be done simply.

I'd like to hear more about some that people think are suspect. Maybe that's a good place to start?

The thing is, unless you know where the HHF came from, you can't say the issue is a set of people who are practicing it until they get a score that is unrealistic for most people.

06-03 is an interesting example: In Production, the HHF is about 16.6389. That means a 0.85 draws and 1.0 reloads (each of those twice) and .144 splits 16 times.

I'm sure there are some people out there who can do this--those numbers, at those distances, aren't impossible. That being said, Stoeger, Leatham, Mink, Sevigny, and Vogel have never gotten a GM score on this classifier in any division. Miculek, in 2006, managed a 95%. Once. (His other one in 2007 got an 83%.)

So I, too, wonder where the HHF factor for that one can from. However, without any actual information I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that someone out there just practiced and practiced this and then ran it in a match until they got a number they liked. (And as someone has said---the HHF for that classifier is the same for all divisions.)

Do we have any information that this type of practice=insane HHF actually occurs? Is there any information that HHFs are actually changed due to single, one-time results from club matches?

I think they used Max's open gun score from an area match to set the production HHF... seriously.

Edited June 27, 2013 by Ben Stoeger

[MarkCO]

There are a few like you are indicating. For instance, Can you count 06-03. We have run this one a few times. Most recently only because it fit in with a theme. We have some top GMs, guys who have finished in the top 16 at Nationals and top 3 at Area matches and have several 100% classifiers. These are guys who can run 0.1 splits to boot! The HIGHEST percentage any of them have shot on this is like 82%. I just went and looked at scores for one of them and he has shot this classifier 6 times as a GM, from 72% to 81%. I think the HHF on 06-03 is very suspect. There are about 5 others like that as well. I usually just avoid running them at matches because classifier scores are important to some of our shooters.

I will say that the more I shoot, the less I care about classifiers and classification in general.

Thanks, I agree that I don't think it is a problem across the board. I also agree that I care less after 10 years.

But, I'm of the opinion that if it is happening I would like to minimize the effect. If it can be done simply.

I'd like to hear more about some that people think are suspect. Maybe that's a good place to start?

The thing is, unless you know where the HHF came from, you can't say the issue is a set of people who are practicing it until they get a score that is unrealistic for most people.

06-03 is an interesting example: In Production, the HHF is about 16.6389. That means a 0.85 draws and 1.0 reloads (each of those twice) and .144 splits 16 times.

I'm sure there are some people out there who can do this--those numbers, at those distances, aren't impossible. That being said, Stoeger, Leatham, Mink, Sevigny, and Vogel have never gotten a GM score on this classifier in any division. Miculek, in 2006, managed a 95%. Once. (His other one in 2007 got an 83%.)

So I, too, wonder where the HHF factor for that one can from. However, without any actual information I'm not going to jump to the conclusion that someone out there just practiced and practiced this and then ran it in a match until they got a number they liked. (And as someone has said---the HHF for that classifier is the same for all divisions.)

Do we have any information that this type of practice=insane HHF actually occurs? Is there any information that HHFs are actually changed due to single, one-time results from club matches?

I think they used Max's open gun score from an area match to set the production HHF... seriously.

The 2007 A4? That is the only score I have ever found on 06-03 that is 100%.

[GuildSF4]

Looking at 06-03, it breaks down like:

0.8s draw

4 shots @ .15 splits = 0.6s

1s reload

4 shots @ .15 splits = 0.6s

Total 3s. Its a hoser classifier. 16.6HHF

I believe the top level competitors are capable of it.

06-03 can you count is 5 shots on each target, reload and 5 on the second target. Using your times that would be a 3.3 second run per string - hit factor 15.15 with all A's. (100 points/6.6 seconds)

Edited June 27, 2013 by GuildSF4