Classifier HHF Determination

[Thomas H]

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.

Yep---thanks. (12.0400) I took someone else's word for it, and I knew that was a bad idea.

The others are all the same at 16.6390, but revolver is lower.

I will note that while I think some of the HHF on a few individual classifiers are too high, and some are too low---overall, I think our classification system works really well. There are some specific individuals who aren't classified in a manner that matches their actual skill or match performance---but in the main, people's classifications match just about exactly where they are going to be in order of finish at a major match.

[motosapiens]

I just realized i had actually shot this classifier. I fumbled both draws and still shot it 2 percentage points higher than my average at the time.

I think it does test a particular set of skills that most all uspsa shooters are pretty good it. Not alot there to differentiate the good from the great, although both good and great will be far ahead of the average, like me.

[CB45]

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.

One last attempt to get back to the heart of the topic. The thread isn't about one particular classifier. Its about the process.

So far nothing has been figured out. How are HHF's determined?

[Racer377]

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.

One last attempt to get back to the heart of the topic. The thread isn't about one particular classifier. Its about the process.

So far nothing has been figured out. How are HHF's determined?

According to 1ma45dv8, it was set by a single run by Max Michel at A6 in 2005. This checks out.

http://www.uspsa.org/legacy/stage_display.php?year=2005&match=Area_6_Championship&dir=Open&file=Pistol_Stage_1.dat

That HF matches the HHF.

It's a bit ridiculous that the HHF for PRD and SSTK was set by guy shooting a comped, dotted open gun with a magwell the size of a volkswagen.

If there is no difference, and comps and dots and magwells and bikini holsters don't offer any advantage (as indicated by the notion that the HHF should be the same), we should allow them in PRD and SSTK.

but we have our answer - the HHF (for this one at least) wasn't set by grandbaggers running it over and over. It was set by a single run in a match. We also know why the HHF is stupid high for all the other divisions -- because you're trying to match the draw, splits, and reload speed of a fully prepped open gun/rig. Twice in row.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Racer377

[CB45]

Hm...

So for others, its set differently? Clearly there is no standard!

We have a system, that standardises us against the best shooters, that isn't standard. That's counterintuitive.

and that was a lot of big words... my brain hurts

[Chris iliff]

The point that jumps out at me is that the HHF should NEVER be based on one score.

Isn't it safe to assume that we all thought it was some type of avg? Of the best ever?

And, I want this point driven home, I am paying for LEGITIMACY. I don't care if USPSA guards HHF's, that's a straw argument anyway. I just want the procedure that arrives at a HHF to be the same across the board, legit. I want to KNOW not ASSUME how it's done.

This is the product USPSA is selling, I want my money spent for a legit product.

[Racer377]

I always thought it was based on the best run at a major match, like this one was. I did however expect it would at least be broken out by division.

[Nik Habicht]

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.

One last attempt to get back to the heart of the topic. The thread isn't about one particular classifier. Its about the process.

So far nothing has been figured out. How are HHF's determined?

According to 1ma45dv8, it was set by a single run by Max Michel at A6 in 2005. This checks out.

http://www.uspsa.org/legacy/stage_display.php?year=2005&match=Area_6_Championship&dir=Open&file=Pistol_Stage_1.dat

That HF matches the HHF.

It's a bit ridiculous that the HHF for PRD and SSTK was set by guy shooting a comped, dotted open gun with a magwell the size of a volkswagen.

If there is no difference, and comps and dots and magwells and bikini holsters don't offer any advantage (as indicated by the notion that the HHF should be the same), we should allow them in PRD and SSTK.

but we have our answer - the HHF (for this one at least) wasn't set by grandbaggers running it over and over. It was set by a single run in a match. We also know why the HHF is stupid high for all the other divisions -- because you're trying to match the draw, splits, and reload speed of a fully prepped open gun/rig. Twice in row.

The comp and dot may not make a huge difference on this particular classifier -- it's pretty much point gun at target, let her rip, and remember to stop after five shots on each target....

Magwell may make a difference, and race holster and pouch position probably shaves a tenth or two per run....

[Nik Habicht]

I always thought it was based on the best run at a major match, like this one was. I did however expect it would at least be broken out by division.

And I think that's where the difficulty lies:

There's probably no practical way to gather the "National Champion" capable GMs and have them shoot a bunch of classifiers for HHF averaging.....

Nationals or Area match entries than become the next possible venue -- but there can be problems. What if there are no GMs in some of the divisions? What if some of the GMs competing in smaller divisions aren't capable of winning a National Championship? Do you still use the HHFs?

The Open score here is probably legit -- Max was shooting against Chris Tilley and a few other GMs.....

I'd probably have approved Dave's HHF for Production, and put it on the list for review after collecting scores for a while...

Same with Jerry and Revolver. L10 on this could probably be equivalent to Production, or Limited/L10 could be set at an average of Open and Production HHFs. Given the allowance for race holsters/mag position I might be ok with equivalence to Open -- for this one classifier....

SS didn't exist. Equivalence to Production seems appropriate, with review after a period of time to see where scores land....

[Racer377]

All good points about the difficulty of creating and administering such a system.

But, the averaging of an individual's scores are a pretty good check. It's easy to get wrapped around the axle about one particular classifier being off. However, because that one particular classifier is averaged with 5 others, or not at all even, I don't know that it matters all that much in the grand scheme of things that the HHF isn't perfect for every single one.

The marginal cost in time and effort to create a perfect HHF determination, with all the issues you pointed out, is probably not worth the extremely tiny difference it would make in anyone's classification.

Of course, I'm viewing that through the lens of someone who doesn't care all that much about classification in the first place. Maybe a little, but I want the overall win. High A or whatever offers me no consolation.

[sperman]

I always thought it was based on the best run at a major match, like this one was. I did however expect it would at least be broken out by division.

And I think that's where the difficulty lies:

There's probably no practical way to gather the "National Champion" capable GMs and have them shoot a bunch of classifiers for HHF averaging.....

Nationals or Area match entries than become the next possible venue -- but there can be problems. What if there are no GMs in some of the divisions? What if some of the GMs competing in smaller divisions aren't capable of winning a National Championship? Do you still use the HHFs?

The Open score here is probably legit -- Max was shooting against Chris Tilley and a few other GMs.....

I'd probably have approved Dave's HHF for Production, and put it on the list for review after collecting scores for a while...

Same with Jerry and Revolver. L10 on this could probably be equivalent to Production, or Limited/L10 could be set at an average of Open and Production HHFs. Given the allowance for race holsters/mag position I might be ok with equivalence to Open -- for this one classifier....

SS didn't exist. Equivalence to Production seems appropriate, with review after a period of time to see where scores land....

This is just a guess, but I think this classifier doesn't fit the normal distribution across the different classes. i.e. a C class shooter can easily shoot well over 60%, so in order to keep shooters from having scores well above their classification, they had to make the HHF artificially high. Of course that theory doesn't work well for open, where the HHF was based on a GM's run.

[CB45]

Artificially high... wut?

That's very consistent

[sperman]

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

[CB45]

My comment wasn't directed towards your abilities, rather pointing out how the system works. Unlike your previous comments towards me.

You pointed out that the system makes things "artificially high". I just quoted it. If that's truly how the system works, that would be odd.

No wonder people give up on posting on this forum. Can't have a civil discussion about relevant USPSA topics.

[Chris iliff]

Wow! Here I thought everyone else thought that HHF was based on an average of the best runs turned in, across the nation. Well, would someone chime in and give a definitive answer. Surely this isn't willy nilly and they pick HHF's at random or use one run from one match and then never revisit the HHF?

It surprises me that this isn't standardized. It surprises me that they didn't average all the GM scores at that particular Area and just used Max's. it suprises me that it didnt get bounced off any other GM score since what, 2005? Geez, I sure wish someone from headquarters would chime in.

I understand that some classifiers might be introduced with a HHF that needs adjustment, due to lack of data. I would expect that at regular intervals USPSA would be mining data on the newer classifiers and adjusting the HHF up or down. I actually thought the HHF's were adjusted and tweaked regularly, I'm paying for legitimacy, just stands to reason that im getting what I pay for, right?

So, what is the consensus? Is it that asshats run the HHF up, or that USPSA doesn't follow any defined plan and some HHF are jacked up as a result?

What's the answer? I'm starting to think that the "lets shoot the piss out of that" is an urban legend. That the problem can actually be traced to "no defined procedure" and "no follow up tweaking".

What say you?

[bbbean]

Wow! Here I thought everyone else thought that HHF was based on an average of the best runs turned in, across the nation. Well, would someone chime in and give a definitive answer. Surely this isn't willy nilly and they pick HHF's at random or use one run from one match and then never revisit the HHF?

It surprises me that this isn't standardized. It surprises me that they didn't average all the GM scores at that particular Area and just used Max's. it suprises me that it didnt get bounced off any other GM score since what, 2005? Geez, I sure wish someone from headquarters would chime in.

I understand that some classifiers might be introduced with a HHF that needs adjustment, due to lack of data. I would expect that at regular intervals USPSA would be mining data on the newer classifiers and adjusting the HHF up or down. I actually thought the HHF's were adjusted and tweaked regularly, I'm paying for legitimacy, just stands to reason that im getting what I pay for, right?

So, what is the consensus? Is it that asshats run the HHF up, or that USPSA doesn't follow any defined plan and some HHF are jacked up as a result?

What's the answer? I'm starting to think that the "lets shoot the piss out of that" is an urban legend. That the problem can actually be traced to "no defined procedure" and "no follow up tweaking".

What say you?

I say the powers that be should be a little more forthcoming on this issue, since it comes up on a regular basis, but I also say there is no problem. Given the fact that classification depends on the best 6 of 8 classifiers and/or major match performance, the occasional classifier that seems to give a percentage higher or lower than expected isn't an issue. The system works.

[CHA-LEE]

I really can't see how there would be a financially viable standard on how the HHF for each classifier is determined. Realistically the only way that could happen is if USPSA footed the bill to fly 10+ top GM's to a private range. Then spend at least a week having the top GM's shoot the classifiers to death until an average HHF can be determined for each division. Can you imagine how much this effort would cost USPSA? It would be retarded expensive. And all of that effort, time, ammo and $$$ used to do what? Update a few classifiers HHF up or down a few percent? The return on investment for an effort like that is simply not justified.

We shoot USPSA matches and the "Product Use Fee" from USPSA is a $1.50 Mission Count, and $1.50 Classifier fee for local club matches. Think about that for a minute. Every match $3.00 of your club match entry fee is paid to USPSA to produce a product (Administration, Rules, Classification system, Front Sight Magazine, etc). This is DIRT CHEAP when compared to most other sanctioned hobbies/sports out there. Could USPSA double or triple these fee's to deploy a more extensive classifier HHF determination process? Sure, but I guarantee that the vast majority of the membership would be very displeased by their entry fee bumping up to account for the increase in USPSA fee's. Once again, the increased fees for what? To validate classifier HHF's that are pretty darn close to what they should be already? USPSA is built upon its membership. If you guys feel that this is such an important change that is needed appeal your Area Director or go directly to the USPSA top officers about it. Have them add this change to the next voting cycle to see what the membership really wants. But always keep in mind, changes like these are not "Free", so be ready to open the wallet and dig a little deeper at every single match you attend in the future if a change like this were to be voted in.

[Ben Stoeger]

I really can't see how there would be a financially viable standard on how the HHF for each classifier is determined. Realistically the only way that could happen is if USPSA footed the bill to fly 10+ top GM's to a private range. Then spend at least a week having the top GM's shoot the classifiers to death until an average HHF can be determined for each division. Can you imagine how much this effort would cost USPSA? It would be retarded expensive. And all of that effort, time, ammo and $$$ used to do what? Update a few classifiers HHF up or down a few percent? The return on investment for an effort like that is simply not justified.

Good point. If only there were some time and place where a bunch of really good GMs get together with guns, gear, and ammo and then shoot as well as they possibly can on stages that get set up for them.

[Strick]

If you are basing a classification system on HHF then A) that HHF should have actually been shot and it should be known.

I am not sure why you need to fly anybody anywhere to shoot anything. The HHF is what it is and shouldn't make a difference if Billy Joe Jim Bob or Vogel shot it. Why is it a mystery? The HHF either exists or it doesn't, if it doesn't then the classification system currently is meaningless. If it does then the HHF's and who shot them should be easily accessible.

[CHA-LEE]

I really can't see how there would be a financially viable standard on how the HHF for each classifier is determined. Realistically the only way that could happen is if USPSA footed the bill to fly 10+ top GM's to a private range. Then spend at least a week having the top GM's shoot the classifiers to death until an average HHF can be determined for each division. Can you imagine how much this effort would cost USPSA? It would be retarded expensive. And all of that effort, time, ammo and $$$ used to do what? Update a few classifiers HHF up or down a few percent? The return on investment for an effort like that is simply not justified.

Good point. If only there were some time and place where a bunch of really good GMs get together with guns, gear, and ammo and then shoot as well as they possibly can on stages that get set up for them.

Yeah, a nationals with all classifier stages. That sounds as fun as a root canal. I would not spend money to attend a major match like that. The nationals can't happen unless there are at least 350 - 400 shooters to offset the expense of running the match. Having an all classifier stage nationals with even 50 top shooters showing up isn't enough entries to justify the expense of the match. Edited June 29, 2013 by CHA-LEE

[Ben Stoeger]

I really can't see how there would be a financially viable standard on how the HHF for each classifier is determined. Realistically the only way that could happen is if USPSA footed the bill to fly 10+ top GM's to a private range. Then spend at least a week having the top GM's shoot the classifiers to death until an average HHF can be determined for each division. Can you imagine how much this effort would cost USPSA? It would be retarded expensive. And all of that effort, time, ammo and $$$ used to do what? Update a few classifiers HHF up or down a few percent? The return on investment for an effort like that is simply not justified.

Good point. If only there were some time and place where a bunch of really good GMs get together with guns, gear, and ammo and then shoot as well as they possibly can on stages that get set up for them.

Yeah, a nationals with all classifier stages. That sounds as fun as a root canal. I would not spend money to attend a major match like that.

Oh. I figured that they could maybe run one or two of them every year, but I guess you think they should go big or go home.

[CHA-LEE]

There are way too many classifiers currently active to piece meal it out a couple of stages at a time. It would take many years to vet the existing classifiers using that method.

So yes, the solution would have to be "do it all at once" or "stick with what we currently have". As a USPSA member I can't justify the cost of resolving this issue the way that I proposed above. I would rather they take the money and burn it in a trash can to warm up some bums on a cold night for a couple of minutes as that would make the same sense as beating this dead horse some more.

[Ben Stoeger]

There are way too many classifiers currently active to piece meal it out a couple of stages at a time. It would take many years to vet the existing classifiers using that method.

So yes, the solution would have to be "do it all at once" or "stick with what we currently have". As a USPSA member I can't justify the cost of resolving this issue the way that I proposed above. I would rather they take the money and burn it in a trash can to warm up some bums on a cold night for a couple of minutes as that would make the same sense as beating this dead horse some more.

Huh?

Don't they already have a system for updating the classifiers we already have?

[CHA-LEE]

If they do it is evidently a top secret mega classified process, because nobody outside the USPSA home office seems to know. By the lack of official USPSA representation on the subject it seems like they want to keep it a mystery.

[kneelingatlas]

If you are basing a classification system on HHF then A) that HHF should have actually been shot and it should be known.

I am not sure why you need to fly anybody anywhere to shoot anything. The HHF is what it is and shouldn't make a difference if Billy Joe Jim Bob or Vogel shot it. Why is it a mystery? The HHF either exists or it doesn't, if it doesn't then the classification system currently is meaningless. If it does then the HHF's and who shot them should be easily accessible.

I can agree with this. Why can the High Hit Factor be exactly that? The highest score ever entered into the classifier system for each individual classifier? Then the HHF can be listed right there in the stage description along with the name of the shooter; it would be the like the Guinness Book...