Classifier HHF Determination

[JakeMartens]

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.

Yeah it doesn't seem that hard, but yet somehow they have made it complicated......or they really don't know how whatever system they are using works ( <--------------ding ding ding!!!!)

[motosapiens]

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.

Ok, So you're just curious. That makes sense. I'm curious too a bit, but I don't necessarily think the process needs to be applied equally in order to be legit. All I care about is that the results are fairly consistent, and that in general, people of a certain classification *tend* to shoot that classification on most classifiers.

[Flexmoney]

Any bod minutes talking about it?

The BOD absolutely did not talk about it...to my knowledge.

[whitedog]

Why are they secret? And how are they deterred? Too much to ask? I believe they are applied as fair as possible....but where do they come from?

[JakeMartens]

Has to do with keebler and elves

[Nik Habicht]

Why are they secret? And how are they deterred? Too much to ask? I believe they are applied as fair as possible....but where do they come from?

I don't know that it's a terrible secret.....

I shot a fair number of the 06 and 08 series classifiers at major matches -- and their HHFs appeared to be based of the high score for those classifiers.....

So it's probably still that simple. I'm not entirely certain how that information helps -- unless someone is curious about what the HHF is prior to having earned a score published to their classification page. Once you have a score on a classification page, the math to figure out the HHF is pretty simple....

[Chris iliff]

Here is a kicker, I'm gonna shoot my first 13 series classifier this weekend. It is CM 13-05, Tick Tock. I looked this up and it was stage 4 at the 2012 nationals. Well, cool. Let's go to YouTube and get some video of people shooting it. Very easy to do, got to see a lot of people shooting it. Finally found a couple vids showing the targets, hmmmmm the set up is damn close, but no cookie? Hmmmmmm.

Soooo, if my research and understanding is correct, in OPEN, the HHF will be 10.7296. I think it was Max that set it.

I am a bit surprised that the course shot and used to set the HHF is not what ended up as the course in the classifier book. It's close, but two of the targets were completely open during the nationals stage, these same two targets have been scooted in so a NO SHOOT touches their C zone in the official classifier version.

And we wonder how things get skewed, well, at least I did. Don't anymore. I'm pretty sure that the HF would have changed at Nationals had this been set up exactly like the classifier diagram. Or, vice versa, I'm pretty sure the HHF is skewed just a little high because the two outside target were completely open during the match.

To motosapiens:

By applied equally I'm saying that a standard is followed. It's actually very simple and since we all pay for it, there should be a protocol.

I love our sport and something that I really liked 10 or so years ago was that I was under the impression that I could shoot with and compare myself to the absolute best in the country. To me, that made the sport so much more attractive and legit. Whether we agree or not, we are all paying for legitimacy in our sport.

So now, I'm shooting a classifier that was NEVER shot, trying to reach a HHF that was achieved on a stage that had 3 open targets instead just one, hmmmmmmmm

Not so legit to me. No wonder some of these seem artificially high. So stupid too, they got a great stage they could have duplicated easily, shot by the best GM's in the country. FAIL.

Not good at links, but here is a vid showing this set up at nationals. It clear that this is a far simpler stage than what ended up as CM 13-05.

Edited November 7, 2013 by Chris iliff

[Nik Habicht]

Chris,

the Stage in the video is titled Tick, Tick, Tick -- it's from the Open L10 nats. The classifier is titled Tick, Tock, and is from the LPR Nats.....

So I don't know that they'll use the open HHF from one for the other....

[Nik Habicht]

Never mind -- I found video, it appears to be the same target set-up....

[Chris iliff]

Yes, I looked at a lot of vids across the divisions and the vid I posted is what everyone shot.

They jacked it up. Simple really, and couldn't get it right.

Oh well.

[JakeMartens]

That is a really interesting find, wonder if they can answer that one

Chris have you sent this in to Amidon?

[motosapiens]

To motosapiens:

By applied equally I'm saying that a standard is followed. It's actually very simple and since we all pay for it, there should be a protocol.

I love our sport and something that I really liked 10 or so years ago was that I was under the impression that I could shoot with and compare myself to the absolute best in the country. To me, that made the sport so much more attractive and legit. Whether we agree or not, we are all paying for legitimacy in our sport.

So now, I'm shooting a classifier that was NEVER shot, trying to reach a HHF that was achieved on a stage that had 3 open targets instead just one, hmmmmmmmm

Not so legit to me. No wonder some of these seem artificially high. So stupid too, they got a great stage they could have duplicated easily, shot by the best GM's in the country. FAIL.

Why are you 'trying to reach a HHF'? Do they give prizes and cash for that now? How exactly does it affect you if the HHF is a percent or two different either way? Does it change your match finish (overall, or in your division?) Does it change your skill level?

I guess maybe I don't care about classifiers that much. They're handy as a sort of rough guesstimate of my progress, and handy as a sort of rough guesstimate of the skill-level of other shooters that I don't personally know, but until they start giving cash bonuses or 6-packs of Lagunitas IPA for getting to a certain HHF, I guess I won't worry about it beyond that. Good luck on your quest, however.

Edited November 7, 2013 by motosapiens

[Flexmoney]

Why are they secret? And how are they deterred? Too much to ask? I believe they are applied as fair as possible....but where do they come from?

Great questions.

[Chris iliff]

To motosapiens:

By applied equally I'm saying that a standard is followed. It's actually very simple and since we all pay for it, there should be a protocol.

I love our sport and something that I really liked 10 or so years ago was that I was under the impression that I could shoot with and compare myself to the absolute best in the country. To me, that made the sport so much more attractive and legit. Whether we agree or not, we are all paying for legitimacy in our sport.

So now, I'm shooting a classifier that was NEVER shot, trying to reach a HHF that was achieved on a stage that had 3 open targets instead just one, hmmmmmmmm

Not so legit to me. No wonder some of these seem artificially high. So stupid too, they got a great stage they could have duplicated easily, shot by the best GM's in the country. FAIL.

Why are you 'trying to reach a HHF'? Do they give prizes and cash for that now? How exactly does it affect you if the HHF is a percent or two different either way? Does it change your match finish (overall, or in your division?) Does it change your skill level?

I guess maybe I don't care about classifiers that much. They're handy as a sort of rough guesstimate of my progress, and handy as a sort of rough guesstimate of the skill-level of other shooters that I don't personally know, but until they start giving cash bonuses or 6-packs of Lagunitas IPA for getting to a certain HHF, I guess I won't worry about it beyond that. Good luck on your quest, however.

If you don't care about it, then bow out.

I happen to care because for me it speaks to the legitimacy of what we do and of our sport. I guess that is my electronics tech/calibration tech background creeping up on me. I believe in "traceability" and "repeatability". So when I come across something that is advertised as having both and it doesn't, then I want to fix it. I am paying for these attributes, so logically, I want it to have these attributes. For me it speaks to legitimacy.

Can't really explain it any better than that. Well, maybe I can....... Here goes......,

I don't give a fat baby shit what the HHF is or how they achieve it. I only give a fat baby shit that it is an established protocol. This is what we all pay for and should expect. If you don't expect that, I accept that you don't. I'm fine with someone that doesn't care.

Yep, that's it.

[beltjones]

To motosapiens:

By applied equally I'm saying that a standard is followed. It's actually very simple and since we all pay for it, there should be a protocol.

I love our sport and something that I really liked 10 or so years ago was that I was under the impression that I could shoot with and compare myself to the absolute best in the country. To me, that made the sport so much more attractive and legit. Whether we agree or not, we are all paying for legitimacy in our sport.

So now, I'm shooting a classifier that was NEVER shot, trying to reach a HHF that was achieved on a stage that had 3 open targets instead just one, hmmmmmmmm

Not so legit to me. No wonder some of these seem artificially high. So stupid too, they got a great stage they could have duplicated easily, shot by the best GM's in the country. FAIL.

Why are you 'trying to reach a HHF'? Do they give prizes and cash for that now? How exactly does it affect you if the HHF is a percent or two different either way? Does it change your match finish (overall, or in your division?) Does it change your skill level?

I guess maybe I don't care about classifiers that much. They're handy as a sort of rough guesstimate of my progress, and handy as a sort of rough guesstimate of the skill-level of other shooters that I don't personally know, but until they start giving cash bonuses or 6-packs of Lagunitas IPA for getting to a certain HHF, I guess I won't worry about it beyond that. Good luck on your quest, however.

You're my favorite schill for the status quo.

I actually don't think the HHF would change for this stage if max shot it as written in the official description, but it is still a valid argument that there are plenty of misapplied HHFs across the many classifieds, and the process for determining them should be revisited. Getting something right is always a good enough reason to undertake an endeavor.

[Chris iliff]

You know I really thought about the HHF changing for Max. It might not change and you could be right. I think with 2 no shoots on the A zone he might have slowed down a tick or 2.

It's interesting and we will never know. We can not duplicate it now in the same big match setting. Well, maybe we could.

[kneelingatlas]

Getting something right is always a good enough reason to undertake an endeavor.

It seems like it would be easy to establish an objective protocol: new classifiers are released each year at nationals and the HHF is in each division is determined by the winner of the stage. If that's the case, I'd love to hear someone confirm it; if not, how is it determined?

If the stage design is altered after Nationals, obviously that HHF is no longer valid.

[motosapiens]

. I believe in "traceability" and "repeatability". So when I come across something that is advertised as having both and it doesn't, then I want to fix it. I am paying for these attributes, so logically, I want it to have these attributes. For me it speaks to legitimacy.

I guess i haven't seen those advertisements. Can you point me to one so I can have a better idea of what you're trying to say?

[motosapiens]

You're my favorite schill for the status quo. I actually don't think the HHF would change for this stage if max shot it as written in the official description, but it is still a valid argument that there are plenty of misapplied HHFs across the many classifieds, and the process for determining them should be revisited. Getting something right is always a good enough reason to undertake an endeavor.

if the status quo is working great and it's a waste of effort to change it that could be spent on something productive (practicing, lobbying for rule changes that would actually affect competition, etc....), then yeah, I guess I support the status quo. I'm a big fan of fixing problems. Not sure this qualifies.

Seems to me that most any method of picking a HHF that results in people generally shooting their classification is hunky-dory, as long as it's the same for every shooter for a given classifier.

[beltjones]

You're my favorite schill for the status quo. I actually don't think the HHF would change for this stage if max shot it as written in the official description, but it is still a valid argument that there are plenty of misapplied HHFs across the many classifieds, and the process for determining them should be revisited. Getting something right is always a good enough reason to undertake an endeavor.

if the status quo is working great and it's a waste of effort to change it that could be spent on something productive (practicing, lobbying for rule changes that would actually affect competition, etc....), then yeah, I guess I support the status quo. I'm a big fan of fixing problems. Not sure this qualifies.

Seems to me that most any method of picking a HHF that results in people generally shooting their classification is hunky-dory, as long as it's the same for every shooter for a given classifier.

Genius, that's the point of the thread. If the HHFs are not valid on a given stage, then peoe aren't shooting their classification on that classifier.

[motosapiens]

You're my favorite schill for the status quo. I actually don't think the HHF would change for this stage if max shot it as written in the official description, but it is still a valid argument that there are plenty of misapplied HHFs across the many classifieds, and the process for determining them should be revisited. Getting something right is always a good enough reason to undertake an endeavor.

if the status quo is working great and it's a waste of effort to change it that could be spent on something productive (practicing, lobbying for rule changes that would actually affect competition, etc....), then yeah, I guess I support the status quo. I'm a big fan of fixing problems. Not sure this qualifies. Seems to me that most any method of picking a HHF that results in people generally shooting their classification is hunky-dory, as long as it's the same for every shooter for a given classifier.

Genius, that's the point of the thread. If the HHFs are not valid on a given stage, then peoe aren't shooting their classification on that classifier.

There's no need to be sarcastic and call names. What is this 'not valid' that you speak of? Which classifiers are consistently getting results that you feel are 'not valid' due to the HHF?

Is this the actual concern in this thread; that some HHF's are too high and some people aren't getting as high a percentage as they think they should? because that wasn't really stated clearly earlier. IMHO that is entirely different from worrying about exactly what process is used to set the HHF. There is no reason that it has to be the same process for every classifier, as long as the results are reasonably consistent.

Edited November 7, 2013 by motosapiens

[kneelingatlas]

what process is used to set the HHF.

That's exactly what I want to know.

There is no reason that it has to be the same process for every classifier, as long as the results are reasonably consistent.

My mind is completely blown by this. Could you give an example of different processes which could be used to determine the HHF and how it would be determined which to use?

[motosapiens]

There is no reason that it has to be the same process for every classifier, as long as the results are reasonably consistent.

My mind is completely blown by this. Could you give an example of different processes which could be used to determine the HHF and how it would be determined which to use?

Statistical inference can be pretty mind-blowing, but it is a powerful science.

Here are a few ways:

1. Take the HHF from a national match, or take the average HHF from a few different levelII+ matches.

2. Take the mean of the 99th percentile of all recorded HF's for that classifier. (or any other statistical method to try to reduce the influence of outliers)

3. Graph all the HF's and see where they show up. Consider ignoring outliers (the 'hero' part of hero or zero)

I suspect it doesn't really matter that much which you choose, unless you find that one of them doesn't appear to match up with competitor classifications. For most classifiers, the three methods are probably going to be within a percentage or two. If the goal is that people generally shoot approximately their classification unless they make a big mistake, then all that really matters is that the HHF is set accordingly. How you get to that point is interesting, but imho not very important.

It's always going to be approximate, no matter what method you use. People have different strengths and weaknesses, so some people will do better and some worse on particular classifiers, plus people just get lucky sometimes.

Edited November 7, 2013 by motosapiens

[Chris iliff]

. I believe in "traceability" and "repeatability". So when I come across something that is advertised as having both and it doesn't, then I want to fix it. I am paying for these attributes, so logically, I want it to have these attributes. For me it speaks to legitimacy.

I guess i haven't seen those advertisements. Can you point me to one so I can have a better idea of what you're trying to say?

I would point to the front of this thread and say that we quickly determined no one knew how it was done. I can also say everyone thought that it was done in some established manner. How does the "collective" come to believe that it must be an established protocol?

I guess we all ASSumed.

The very fact that classifiers have very precise stage diagrams is all the inference a smart guy like you should need to understand the relationship to "traceability" and "repeatability". I know you are a smart guy, despite the fact you didn't connect those dots, because you came up with some good solutions above.

So kudos, good solutions, let's pick one or all 3. Then follow them.

[kneelingatlas]

There is no reason that it has to be the same process for every classifier, as long as the results are reasonably consistent.

My mind is completely blown by this. Could you give an example of different processes which could be used to determine the HHF and how it would be determined which to use?

Statistical inference can be pretty mind-blowing, but it is a powerful science.

Here are a few ways:

1. Take the HHF from a national match, or take the average HHF from a few different levelII+ matches.

2. Take the mean of the 99th percentile of all recorded HF's for that classifier. (or any other statistical method to try to reduce the influence of outliers)

3. Graph all the HF's and see where they show up. Consider ignoring outliers (the 'hero' part of hero or zero)

I suspect it doesn't really matter that much which you choose, unless you find that one of them doesn't appear to match up with competitor classifications. For most classifiers, the three methods are probably going to be within a percentage or two. If the goal is that people generally shoot approximately their classification unless they make a big mistake, then all that really matters is that the HHF is set accordingly. How you get to that point is interesting, but imho not very important.

It's always going to be approximate, no matter what method you use. People have different strengths and weaknesses, so some people will do better and some worse on particular classifiers, plus people just get lucky sometimes.

You give three (actually five) possible methodologies a few of which I could agree with, but how could you justify using one on some classifiers and another on others? Above you said there is no reason that it has to be the same process for every classifier, but how could that be?

Edited November 7, 2013 by kneelingatlas