Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Classifier HHF Determination


Chris iliff

Recommended Posts

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

That obviously does not work because you end up in the same situation as the Can You Count classifier. Do you really want the high hit factors determined by someone shooting a classifier once in super hero mode where they got lucky in getting their hits when shooting the stage out of their mind? That would completely skew the high hit factors to levels beyond reach of most everyone. A B class shooter with a fast finger going hero or zero could luck out and knock the HHF out of the park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 281
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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

That's problematic -- how do we know the classifier was set correctly? If set-up is off, even a little, it could make a huge difference in how it's shot....

Endless reshoots looking for the perfect run would also be an issue....

Setting a HHF based on a score shot at Nats, by a GM who is in the hunt for the match win, should be pretty realistic. If there are a sufficient number of GMs competing, then the GM setting the HHF is unlikely to have really throttled back, or gone for broke....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

That obviously does not work because you end up in the same situation as the Can You Count classifier. Do you really want the high hit factors determined by someone shooting a classifier once in super hero mode where they got lucky in getting their hits when shooting the stage out of their mind? That would completely skew the high hit factors to levels beyond reach of most everyone. A B class shooter with a fast finger going hero or zero could luck out and knock the HHF out of the park.

The problem with Can You Count is that is based of a run in one division, the fastest fastest division at that.

My point is that there is no reason to fly anybody any where. It doesn't need to be based on 1 HHF, it can be an average, it just needs to based on actual scores in that division. Also since those scores are already being sent in they should be posted.

I don't see why this needs to be overly complicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't actually know if it's overly complicated, because we don't know how the system works, or if it even works in a consistent manner. And we're not likely to any time soon since HQ won't tell us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll pop in here with a reference on the 06-03 classifier HHF.

First time I shot it back in 06 I did a 100% on it. I remember that I didn't even shoot it as well as was possible, and it was well over the HHF for a 100.

9/21/06 06-03 GREAT LAKES STEEL E 100.0000 9/26/06

This is actually a good example of the issue---for example, you've shot this classifier three time (once in Open, twice in Limited)---and gotten a 100%, an 82%, and a 75%. (In chronological order.) Unless you want to argue that you are getting worse over time.... :)

...then this seems to REALLY be a hero-or-zero HHF.

I note that since this is Brian Enos, there isn't any reason why anyone from HQ should answer any of the questions people keep getting upset about here. For those who have gotten upset, have you emailed HQ and asked? If they have not responded, have you emailed your Area Director and asked? If they have not responded, have you emailed the USPSA President, informed him that your Area Director apparently feels they can ignore shooters in their area, and you'd like answers?

If you want an answer, you kinda need to ask the people who know the answer, right?

(For example, if I recall correctly there have been some changes in attitude [corresponding to changes in the BOD] regarding classifiers. I know in the past people couldn't get answers regarding HHF and such---however, has anyone tried lately?)

My last point: I'm betting that HQ won't have a GOOD answer for you, because the HHF for the various classifiers have been set in so many different ways. (And changed for several different reasons, too.) They probably won't be able to give you a solid, singular answer. And in some cases, such as 06-03, I'm thinking their answer would be "Yeah, it was based on Michel's run, and someone just made it true across the board, and no one caught it."

Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really want the high hit factors determined by someone shooting a classifier once in super hero mode where they got lucky in getting their hits when shooting the stage out of their mind? That would completely skew the high hit factors to levels beyond reach of most everyone. A B class shooter with a fast finger going hero or zero could luck out and knock the HHF out of the park.

I don't see a problem with that. If a B class shooter shoots the highest hit factor on this particular classifier his score for it should be 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's problematic -- how do we know the classifier was set correctly? If set-up is off, even a little, it could make a huge difference in how it's shot....

I was expecting that response, but if a USPSA Match Director can't be trusted to set up a classifier properly to post the highest score on a particular classifier, how can he be trusted to report any scores? isn't the score which advanced a shooter from B class to A class equally important?

Endless reshoots looking for the perfect run would also be an issue....

If you see shooting a classifier more than once as an advantage, I suggest you petition USPSA to make a rule against it; with no rule forbidding it, I don't see how it can preclude a shooter from shooting the highest hit factor. Even if there where a rule, what's to stop someone from setting it up on their own and practicing?

Setting a HHF based on a score shot at Nats, by a GM who is in the hunt for the match win, should be pretty realistic. If there are a sufficient number of GMs competing, then the GM setting the HHF is unlikely to have really throttled back, or gone for broke....

Then it wouldn't necessarily be the "High Hit Factor" would it? "High Hit Factor by a GM at Nationals not trying to go as fast as he possibly can" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue does it?

It seems as there are only two real options: the High Hit Factor is exactly that, the highest score shot in each division by any USPSA member at a sanctioned USPSA match, or the High Hit Factor is picked arbitrarily be the powers that be to produce the classifications they desire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OP was basically, can we fix the problem of "people running up HHF"?

I myself have learned a ton, what I'm learning is..........

HHF was never an avg of the best. I guess this is true, at least on some classifiers.

I guess I'm good with that, but it does seem prone to produce an occasional HHF that is whacked a little. I would definitely prefer an avg of GM scores at bigger matches. Who all ran "Can You Count" when Max blasted it out of the water at an Area? Wouldn't a "toss the low and hi and avg the rest" procedure been better? Or just an avg of the lowest and highest among the competing GMs?

HHF have no defined method of establishment.

This, im not good with. I also understand that not one person is responsible, per se. People come and go and things happen differently under different leadership. I wouldn't want, or condone any blaming of any person, basically it is what it is because I don't think anyone ever really established any set protocol. If someone did, maybe it was not always followed. I think it should be established and fixed forthwith. I want to see some BOD minutes on this subject and plans to start following some legit and meaningful protocol.

As a thought, I would not object to suggestions from headquarters on classifiers to run at the bigger matches. They are approving stages, correct? Why cant they suggest to MD's "Hey, it would help us if you could run this classifier, we'd like to "mine some data".

Anyways, WOW, good thread, mow lets write headquarters and get these guys talking about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's problematic -- how do we know the classifier was set correctly? If set-up is off, even a little, it could make a huge difference in how it's shot....

I was expecting that response, but if a USPSA Match Director can't be trusted to set up a classifier properly to post the highest score on a particular classifier, how can he be trusted to report any scores? isn't the score which advanced a shooter from B class to A class equally important?

It has happened at two local matches I attended. At one, the MD refused to adjust the course, I measured it and took photos of it, but shot it anyway. I contacted the SC, AD, and HQ and pretty much no one did anything about it. The scores stood, even though the course was clearly wrong. The classifier has since been retired, but based on what I have seen, there are probably fair number of scores entered on incorrect set-ups. Granted, in most cases, small errors won't translate into any significant change in the HF, but consistency is what is mandated, but not always followed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's good info Mark, maybe I'm assuming local MDs take consistent setup of classifiers more seriously than they really do. If that's true, how meaningful are classifications earned at local matches? Isn't that a more significant issue than the HHF.

If the HHF is too important to be entrusted to the local MD, then why not make it the HHF shot at a level two or above? Three or above? At least then you have a simple, objective and transparent method of determining the HHF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another thought could it be that the HHF is adjusted so that C and B and maybe A class shooters scores are more in line? On some classifiers I can see where the skill curve from C to GM would be less linear than than others.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's problematic -- how do we know the classifier was set correctly? If set-up is off, even a little, it could make a huge difference in how it's shot....

I was expecting that response, but if a USPSA Match Director can't be trusted to set up a classifier properly to post the highest score on a particular classifier, how can he be trusted to report any scores? isn't the score which advanced a shooter from B class to A class equally important?

Endless reshoots looking for the perfect run would also be an issue....

If you see shooting a classifier more than once as an advantage, I suggest you petition USPSA to make a rule against it; with no rule forbidding it, I don't see how it can preclude a shooter from shooting the highest hit factor. Even if there where a rule, what's to stop someone from setting it up on their own and practicing?

Setting a HHF based on a score shot at Nats, by a GM who is in the hunt for the match win, should be pretty realistic. If there are a sufficient number of GMs competing, then the GM setting the HHF is unlikely to have really throttled back, or gone for broke....

Then it wouldn't necessarily be the "High Hit Factor" would it? "High Hit Factor by a GM at Nationals not trying to go as fast as he possibly can" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue does it?

It seems as there are only two real options: the High Hit Factor is exactly that, the highest score shot in each division by any USPSA member at a sanctioned USPSA match, or the High Hit Factor is picked arbitrarily be the powers that be to produce the classifications they desire.

WE can trust match directors to be fallible, just like anyone else.....

I know I've caught some incorrectly set classifiers half-way through the match, and fortunately the classifier results weren't submitted in those cases. That's not to say it hasn't happened....

And yes, we want a representative run on classifiers that reflects a competitor's ability -- see the Classifier Course Book intro. I'm thinking that the person setting the HHF isn't/shouldn't be exempt from that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know about that. Classification is but one method of determining skill level, and it will never be perfect.

My 10 highest classifier scores are from classifiers that: Have movement, have strong/weak hand and lack reloads. I don't shoot a ton of pistol matches and I usually don't run classifiers as hero or zero. But I sure as heck don't want the HHF in Production based on a hero run of an Open GM...that certainly is NOT adjusting the HHF for C, B, or A shooters!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I contacted my President and Area director. No word from the Prez, but my Area Director was prompt and informative. That's why I vote!!!

Hopefully, this will be resolved moving forward. I was surprised to hear that HHF has been visited with at least some discussion by our elected officials.

Little worried the Prez hasn't responded yet, but he is busy. I'll keep everyone up to date if I hear anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

Just wanted to update this, or get it updated by anyone with info.

Since we do have 9 new classifiers, the 13's, I was kinda hoping we would know exactly how the HHF for each was established.

Was a protocol established?

Any bod minutes talking about it?

Did we use an average, or just the best run?

I did talk with my Area Director and got some good info way back. I still have no answer from our President.

Edited by Chris iliff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is HHF such a secret any way? Everything else is transparent. All you need is a member # and you can see everyone's history and such. I think the process and numbers should be told.

Although in the latest Front Sight they go into it a bit I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why does it matter? it's not like I get a raise in my paycheck when my classification changes. Whatever the system is, it's the same for everyone, so I just shoot.

Well, you are correct. But, I started this thread with some ideas and found out no one really knew how it was determined. So it's just kinda grown.

Now, I'm just wanting to know that an established protocol is used and it's used equally across the board. I'm fine with whatever that may be. But to be "legit" it needs to apply equally across all divisions.

Basically, a "this is how we come up with HHF" protocol. Then simply follow it.

If you go back to the beginning and read the whole thread I guess it still might not matter to you, but you might get where I'm coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the easiest "problem" USPSA faces. There is literally no need to overcomplicate it.

Simply add classifiers after they have been shot at a Nationals event, and for each division use either the HHF from the match, or an aggregation of top HFs.

Then, every period of time revisit the HHFs for each stage and use simple statistics to update the HHF if required. One method would be to use the median HF of the top 99th percentile of HFs for the stage.

Provided USPSA maintains a database of HFs for each stage, updating the HHFs would take about 10 minutes every few years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...