Classifier HHF Determination

[sperman]

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

Maybe you are being sarcastic. If not, can you do a reload on a SS gun as fast as you can an open or limited gun?

[CB45]

It doesn't matter what I can or can't do. Its about what the people setting the HHF can do.

You saying its impossible for people like Rob L, or Dave S. to do a sub 1s reload in SS?

Let's stay away from turning this into a peeing match.

Edited June 27, 2013 by CB45

[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.

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)

My math is correct. Want me to spell it out for you?

Draw to first shot. 0.8s.

Second shot 0.95s (.15s split)

Third shot 1.1s

Fourth shot 1.25s

Fifth shot 1.4s

...

Were up to 1.4s now. Stay with me...

1s Reload to 6th shot 2.4s

7th shot. 2.55s

8th shot 2.70s

9th shot 2 .85s

10th shot 3.0s.

50/3 = 16.6HF

[GuildSF4]

Misunderstood as you said 4 shots. However total time would still be 6 seconds 100 points = 16.66...

[CB45]

Misunderstood as you said 4 shots. However total time would still be 6 seconds 100 points = 16.66...

Details...

[Chris iliff]

First, I have always ASSumed that the HHF was an average of the top 6 or 8 or 10 of all the HF's turned in for the classifier. Anyways, an average. You know, throw out the high and low and average the rest or some such thing.

Second, of course one ASShat isn't jacking the system up, i believe its a series of unrelated instances across the country by different people spread out over months, possibly years, driving the HHF up. I would think it would be on the classifiers that are very easy to set up and that are, most likely, one string. But, who knows?

Third, for me, it is about a perceived problem, and solutions. I don't really think "hey just shoot and have fun" is an answer, or, "I don't care about that stuff, getting bumped at a big match is my goal". Those are fine sentiments, but they avoid the issue altogether.

My original idea for posting was to find out .........

Does this happen? (I believe it does)

Is it prevalent? (I don't think it is)

Can we fix it? (I believe we can)

Should we fix it? (Absolutely, any problem, no matter how small should be fixed, IMHO)

That's it, that's why I posted. I don't believe it's holding people back, me especially. Money and practice are holding me back, LOL. I do believe USPSA should be spending a little more time and effort ensuring the HHF's are based on tangible evidence. I belong to the best sport in the world and love it.

When a club pays money to USPSA for classifiers, the club, and its shooters, have a right to expect that what they are paying for is fair, balanced, tangible, traceable, and meaningful. This is what attracted me to USPSA 10 years ago. The fact that it was legit and I could see how I stacked up nationally.

If I look up a classifier and the best of the best can't crack a 100%, then something is wrong and USPSA should move immediately to fix it or delete it. This way the money everyone pays is for a product that is legit, not all guesstimated or run up ridiculously high. I am paying for a service, I expect that anything I pay for is legit, even HHF's. I think it's a fair standard and reasonable.

[MarkCO]

Cheers Chris, looks like the start of a good letter to your AD.

[ima45dv8]

For those of you still wondering, the HHF's for 06-03 were set at the Area 6 Championship in 2005, where it was introduced. When the stages were submitted to DNROI for his blessing, he asked that a measured drawing be made in case they wanted to use it as a classifier in the future.

That was not the intent of the design, however. It was designed to fit a very small bay, be completed very quickly, and have great spectator appeal. It was run right next to the vendor area and the thought was to draw customers into the vicinity.

Many have decried that's it's too simple, doesn't test any real skills, has no place in our sport, and so on. In reality it tests many relevant skills -- draw, transitions, splits, reloads, and maybe most importantly, how to remain relaxed at speed.

I didn't get to see Max's and Phil's runs (16.6389 and 15.180, respectively), but I heard them and got to see the score sheets shortly after. Just insanely fast.

[CHA-LEE]

I don't know if these statements are fact or not, but I will voice my opinion on the subject. I believe that the High Hit Factors for most of the classifiers are based on a "Time to get actions done" formula and the HHF is simply created by this calculation.There are far too many classifiers with a 100% time or 100% HF that is a round number, or a clean partial of a number such as 9.5. If all of the classifiers HHF was determined by some kind of average in top shooter performance the 100% Times and HF's would NOT end up being clean hole numbers most of the time. They would all have many digits past the decimal point because they would all have unique numbers. Such as a hit factor of 10.554234, instead of 10.5.

That being said, even if they do apply a standard time allocation for getting the shooting, reloading and transitioning done I think its pretty accurate most of the time. For the vilified classifier listed above 06-03 Can you Count, the draw, shooting, and reloading times are not unrealistic. Top GM's should be able to produce a .80 first shot A zone hit to a 1 yard target and crank out the required .15 splits. The same goes for being able to perform a 1 second reload. I think that the major challenge with this classifier is not the drawing, shooting or reloading challenge. Its producing two solid runs back to back without trigger freezing. If this classifier had the exact same hit factor but only had one string there would be a LOT more shooters producing 100% runs.

I also want to add that once shooters make GM they usually stop worrying about their performance on classifiers and simply treat it like any other stage. For example, when I shoot the 06-03 classifier I purposefully shoot it at about 80% of maximum speed because I know that will result in very consistent results on both strings and allow me to capture a good amount of stage points against other shooters who are going Hero or Zero on it. Sure there may be one or two guys that end up with a slightly higher hit factor than me, but the vast majority of shooters will crash and burn on one of the strings giving me a significant advantage over them in the match as a whole. Could I shoot this classifier at 100% if I went all out on it? Probably. But why risk shooting on the edge when I don't have to. This kind of stage is one that your goal is to simply survive, not risk throwing away a ton of match points by trigger freezing or botching a reload TRYING to go fast.

[MoNsTeR]

Problem #1 is that the classifier system has no transparency. We don't know for 100% sure what all the HHF's are (CMCalc and friends are often wrong), nor is it published how the HHF's were arrived at.

There was a suggestion earlier in the thread that the HHF for Can You Count was set by a single run at whatever Area match it was introduced at. Simply put, that is crap. Measuring the performance of tens of thousands of members against one hero run doesn't make any sense. (And it makes even less sense for the HHF to be the same for all divisions, if that is indeed the case.) The classifier system is designed to group people into brackets of ability. The HHFs should represent "how top shooters" -- emphasis on plural -- shoot, not "how that one guy that one time shot it perfectly when the stars aligned". An average of the top 10 scores, or something along those lines, would be reasonable, but not the very top score all by itself.

Speaking of HHFs for various divisions, I heard once (probably here) that when Production was introduced, they simply took a percentage off the Limited HHFs and called it good. It should be obvious to anyone who looks at the stages that such an approach would create systematic biases for or against Production shooters on any number of stages, especially anything with multiple reloads or >25 yard shots. Even if that particular legend isn't true, it is a fact that the HHFs for Fixed Time stages are the same for all divisions. I defy anyone to justify that with a straight face.

[Ben Stoeger]

Many have decried that's it's too simple, doesn't test any real skills, has no place in our sport, and so on. In reality it tests many relevant skills -- draw, transitions, splits, reloads, and maybe most importantly, how to remain relaxed at speed.

Oh

[ima45dv8]

Many have decried that's it's too simple, doesn't test any real skills, has no place in our sport, and so on. In reality it tests many relevant skills -- draw, transitions, splits, reloads, and maybe most importantly, how to remain relaxed at speed.

Oh

"Oh" Hell. What you got to offer Ben?

Speak up.

I guess you've shot a documented 100% on this.

[Ben Stoeger]

Many have decried that's it's too simple, doesn't test any real skills, has no place in our sport, and so on. In reality it tests many relevant skills -- draw, transitions, splits, reloads, and maybe most importantly, how to remain relaxed at speed.

Oh

"Oh" Hell. What you got to offer Ben?

Speak up.

I guess you've shot a documented 100% on this.

What makes you think I have shot 100% on it? I am confused.

[beltjones]

For those of you still wondering, the HHF's for 06-03 were set at the Area 6 Championship in 2005, where it was introduced. When the stages were submitted to DNROI for his blessing, he asked that a measured drawing be made in case they wanted to use it as a classifier in the future.

That was not the intent of the design, however. It was designed to fit a very small bay, be completed very quickly, and have great spectator appeal. It was run right next to the vendor area and the thought was to draw customers into the vicinity.

Many have decried that's it's too simple, doesn't test any real skills, has no place in our sport, and so on. In reality it tests many relevant skills -- draw, transitions, splits, reloads, and maybe most importantly, how to remain relaxed at speed.

I didn't get to see Max's and Phil's runs (16.6389 and 15.180, respectively), but I heard them and got to see the score sheets shortly after. Just insanely fast.

I think this is a straw man. I don't think many people decry that it's too simple - they decry that the HHF is the same across the divisions and that it's really really high.

Edited June 28, 2013 by beltjones

[Nik Habicht]

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!

06-03 was Stage 1 at the 2005 Area 6 match. The HHF for the five autoloading divisions appears to be identical, and based on Max Michel's run in Open. Now, Open at that match had multiple top GMs, but in Production for instance the stage was won by Dave Sevigny with a 13.6 HHF. I'd argue that Sevigny's capable of setting a HHF....

So yeah, for the five autoloading divisions to have a HHF set off the Open champ seems indicative of a problem....

[Nik Habicht]

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?

Jerry won the stage at the 2005 A6 with an 11.3 HF -- yet the HHF for Revolver is at ~12? So his 95% score a few years later, is roughly equivalent to his stage winning score? Bizarre....

[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....

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.

While they were shot at matches, in at least one instance, the stage winning scores were mostly based off open....

I wonder if that's because 06-03 was shot at an area, rather than a National match?

[Nik Habicht]

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)

Nope. The draw and the reload include one shot each, so four splits twice is the correct math. You need to run this clean in 6 seconds for both strings....

[ima45dv8]

Many have decried that's it's too simple, doesn't test any real skills, has no place in our sport, and so on. In reality it tests many relevant skills -- draw, transitions, splits, reloads, and maybe most importantly, how to remain relaxed at speed.

Oh

"Oh" Hell. What you got to offer Ben?

Speak up.

I guess you've shot a documented 100% on this.

What makes you think I have shot 100% on it? I am confused.

OK. That clears that up. Now neither of us is confused about your ability on this particular classifier.

Then why the, "Oh"?

[sperman]

For those of you still wondering, the HHF's for 06-03 were set at the Area 6 Championship in 2005, where it was introduced. When the stages were submitted to DNROI for his blessing, he asked that a measured drawing be made in case they wanted to use it as a classifier in the future.

That was not the intent of the design, however. It was designed to fit a very small bay, be completed very quickly, and have great spectator appeal. It was run right next to the vendor area and the thought was to draw customers into the vicinity.

Interesting. I always assumed it was a stage you and John designed as part of your CRO class. That's what I get for assuming.

[Ben Stoeger]

Many have decried that's it's too simple, doesn't test any real skills, has no place in our sport, and so on. In reality it tests many relevant skills -- draw, transitions, splits, reloads, and maybe most importantly, how to remain relaxed at speed.

Oh

"Oh" Hell. What you got to offer Ben?

Speak up.

I guess you've shot a documented 100% on this.

What makes you think I have shot 100% on it? I am confused.

OK. That clears that up. Now neither of us is confused about your ability on this particular classifier.

Then why the, "Oh"?

I have always thought that this classifier was a particularly poor test of relevant skills. I don't train to do well on this classifier, because I would rather train to do well at big matches. I am not one of the people saying it "has no place in the sport", but if you think this test is "relevant" than I suggest you re-evaluate both the classifier and the nature of the stages at an event like nationals.

My personal ability level on this classifier is an interesting red herring to throw out. My initial reaction is that my personal lack of ability on this isn't really important to the conversation... after reconsidering though I think many people would point out that I am one of the people on the sort list of folks that may be one of the top 10 scores on a classifier that you would be averaging according to the policy. Maybe that is why you are curious?

In any event, carry on.

[ima45dv8]

No way this stage represents what it takes to win a match; Nationals or local.

Having seen you perform with a pistol did make me think you've done well at it, though.

[beltjones]

No way this stage represents what it takes to win a match; Nationals or local.

Having seen you perform with a pistol did make me think you've done well at it, though.

Well? Or well compared to Max with an Open gun?

(because that's kind of the point, isn't it?)

[ima45dv8]

No way this stage represents what it takes to win a match; Nationals or local.

Having seen you perform with a pistol did make me think you've done well at it, though.

Well? Or well compared to Max with an Open gun?

(because that's kind of the point, isn't it?)

That wasn't MY point at all.

I don't know who holds the HHF for this in Production, or if anyone holds the HHF. It may well be another of the "formulated" HHFs like we've seen time and again.

I've read that periodic updates are supposed to be done by averaging the top 10 HF's for classifiers. I'd like to know when (if ever) this is done.

[beltjones]

No way this stage represents what it takes to win a match; Nationals or local.

Having seen you perform with a pistol did make me think you've done well at it, though.

Well? Or well compared to Max with an Open gun?

(because that's kind of the point, isn't it?)

That wasn't MY point at all.

I don't know who holds the HHF for this in Production, or if anyone holds the HHF. It may well be another of the "formulated" HHFs like we've seen time and again.

I've read that periodic updates are supposed to be done by averaging the top 10 HF's for classifiers. I'd like to know when (if ever) this is done.

Right, your point (part of it) is that this classifier is a good test of transitions.

I honestly like this classifier. It's pretty much at the opposite end of the spectrum as something like "Merle's Standards," and to the extent it's a hoser stage that counter-balances some of the long-range classifiers it's great.

But the hit factors are way out of whack. That much is tough to deny.