Classifier HHF Determination

[Chills1994]

You mean the HHF would actually be the highest hit factor ever shot on the particular classifier in that particular division?!?

Pure insanity.

Yeah, you're right, because you know some d-bagg is going to shoot CM whatever a gazillion times until he gets his name up as holding the Highest Hit Factor and thinks to himself "Ha! Ha! I really screwed them with the curve that time.". And it'll be some dude whose name you will never see in any of the Nat's results either.

So take the 5 best (separate or individual shooter's HF's, no repeats from the same shooter) per division per stage. Average those 5. Make that the High Hit Factor.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Chills1994

[motosapiens]

I can see that you feel strongly about this issue, and I don't mean to sound like I'm negating your feelings, I'm just (out of curiousity) struggling to understand *why* you feel so strongly about something that *seems* fairly trivial to me. Do you think there are too many GM's? Not enough? How does the issue even affect you or make a difference? If I got a 10% pay raise at work for making master, I guess I'd feel strongly too. But I don't. Oh well.

I think I finally figured out our disconnect, don't want to speak for chills, but he will chime in if I'm off base. I notice in this post and other posts you have made, that you reference class. Above you reference making Master. That seems to be what dominates your reasoning in many posts. That may be important to you, you bring it up a lot, but for me, I never thought about it that way. I can see now that some do. Let me say again, the determination of HHF should have an established protocol because to me it speaks to the legitimacy of our sport. That's it. I just see a wishy washy procedure and the calibration tech in me wants to fix it. Pretty simple really.

It doesn't really dominate my reasoning, I just can't imagine any other reason why you might care about something that doesn't actually affect the shooting or the results. Is it just an obsessive-compulsive thing? I would probably get more OCD about popper calibration, or 180 violations, or trigger work on cz's in production, or something else that actually does affect shooting and results, but that doesn't mean you're wrong. I totally get fixated on things that seem pretty random to my wife. At any rate, I appreciate the lively exchange of opinions, and I apologize if I accidentally come across as condescending or just as a jackass. I'm just trying to understand and learn more about the sport and kill some time in the cold season by typing on the internet since it's dark and I can't go outside and dryfire in the backyard.

It just doesn't make any dang difference to me at all whether my 7.575 hf on a particular classifer works out to be one percentage or another, as long as it's the same for everyone.

Edited November 20, 2013 by motosapiens

[motosapiens]

Yeah, you're right, because you know some d-bagg is going to shoot CM whatever a gazillion times until he gets his name up as holding the Highest Hit Factor and thinks to himself "Ha! Ha! I really screwed them with the curve that time.". And it'll be some dude whose name you will never see in any of the Nat's results either.

d-bagg? that seems strong. Statements like that make me wonder if there's some particular issue with people not being able to score as high as they think they should that drives this whole discussion.

Just shoot. The scores will happen, but they are not the goal.

[motosapiens]

I want the HHF to be tied to someone's actual name, division, member number, date, club name, total target points, time, actual hit factor. In short, reality.

If they can do it, so can I, or Scott, or Kyle.

Just because Bob Beamon set the long jump record in 1968 at 29 feet 2.5 inches, people didn't stop doing the long jump. His record was finally broken in 1991.

Quickly and easily seeing what somebody set the HF record on the El Prez or Six Chickens, etc. should inspire people to try harder, practice more.

Hmm. So wouldn't those people who practiced that particular classifier more be 'd-baggs'? You're confusing me now. I can't tell if you are angry at people that practice or just want better goals to practice towards.

[Chills1994]

In my ideal world, people who want to shoot legit classifiers to be submitted to HQ would only get one or two runs at it at the local match.

Can they practice it all they want before the local match?

Yeah, sure.

Do other match directors in other areas publish what classifiers they are going to shoot at their monthly local club matches a year in advance?

I have heard that they do.

Am I angry at anybody?

No. Just a little flabbergasted/flustered/fatigued by this thread.

Heck, at this point if Phil Strader posted up a picture of the old Sedro USPSA HQ office with Michael Voigt holding a Magic 8 ball, Val with a ouija board, Alan Meek throwing darts at a dart board, Rob Boudrie dropping chicken bones while reciting some unintelligible incantations, and Dave Thomas sprinkling dried newt eyes into a bubbling cauldron, I'd be happy with that.

[Chris iliff]

I can see that you feel strongly about this issue, and I don't mean to sound like I'm negating your feelings, I'm just (out of curiousity) struggling to understand *why* you feel so strongly about something that *seems* fairly trivial to me. Do you think there are too many GM's? Not enough? How does the issue even affect you or make a difference? If I got a 10% pay raise at work for making master, I guess I'd feel strongly too. But I don't. Oh well.

I think I finally figured out our disconnect, don't want to speak for chills, but he will chime in if I'm off base. I notice in this post and other posts you have made, that you reference class. Above you reference making Master. That seems to be what dominates your reasoning in many posts. That may be important to you, you bring it up a lot, but for me, I never thought about it that way. I can see now that some do. Let me say again, the determination of HHF should have an established protocol because to me it speaks to the legitimacy of our sport. That's it. I just see a wishy washy procedure and the calibration tech in me wants to fix it. Pretty simple really.

It doesn't really dominate my reasoning, I just can't imagine any other reason why you might care about something that doesn't actually affect the shooting or the results. Is it just an obsessive-compulsive thing? I would probably get more OCD about popper calibration, or 180 violations, or trigger work on cz's in production, or something else that actually does affect shooting and results, but that doesn't mean you're wrong. I totally get fixated on things that seem pretty random to my wife. At any rate, I appreciate the lively exchange of opinions, and I apologize if I accidentally come across as condescending or just as a jackass. I'm just trying to understand and learn more about the sport and kill some time in the cold season by typing on the internet since it's dark and I can't go outside and dryfire in the backyard.

It just doesn't make any dang difference to me at all whether my 7.575 hf on a particular classifer works out to be one percentage or another, as long as it's the same for everyone.

Just pointing out your first couple lines in the post I quoted seem to show exactly what you care about. It seems over and over you want to try and make it some kind of slight on people that want to make the classifier system more legit. You say over and over you don't understand, then you condescendingly ask if it is because of "insert something with negative connotations" like Grandbagging, or OCD.

I told another poster not to apologize for anything, I'll tell you the same, embrace it! You are either the most obtuse shooter I've ever met, or you are condescending jackass. Your words not mine. Personally, I hope condescending jackass is it, because that is fixable, if you are just obtuse, well then, sorry about all that......just hang in there.

Again, I think establishing a "set protocol" for setting HHF's makes the process and USPSA more legitimate. This could be done hundreds of different ways. As long as it would exclude the "set up and burn down" crowd, I'd probably support it.

[beltjones]

I want the HHF to be tied to someone's actual name, division, member number, date, club name, total target points, time, actual hit factor. In short, reality.

If they can do it, so can I, or Scott, or Kyle.

Just because Bob Beamon set the long jump record in 1968 at 29 feet 2.5 inches, people didn't stop doing the long jump. His record was finally broken in 1991.

Quickly and easily seeing what somebody set the HF record on the El Prez or Six Chickens, etc. should inspire people to try harder, practice more.

Hmm. So wouldn't those people who practiced that particular classifier more be 'd-baggs'? You're confusing me now. I can't tell if you are angry at people that practice or just want better goals to practice towards.

All of your posts are classic examples of bad logical and argumentative techniques. If you're not begging the question you're setting up strawmen and attacking them, or throwing red herrings all over the place.

[motosapiens]

I want the HHF to be tied to someone's actual name, division, member number, date, club name, total target points, time, actual hit factor. In short, reality.

If they can do it, so can I, or Scott, or Kyle.

Just because Bob Beamon set the long jump record in 1968 at 29 feet 2.5 inches, people didn't stop doing the long jump. His record was finally broken in 1991.

Quickly and easily seeing what somebody set the HF record on the El Prez or Six Chickens, etc. should inspire people to try harder, practice more.

Hmm. So wouldn't those people who practiced that particular classifier more be 'd-baggs'? You're confusing me now. I can't tell if you are angry at people that practice or just want better goals to practice towards.

All of your posts are classic examples of bad logical and argumentative techniques. If you're not begging the question you're setting up strawmen and attacking them, or throwing red herrings all over the place.

It doesn't bother me if you think that. It also doesn't bother me if y'all would rather stress about the classification process than about shooting and match results. Clearly there at least 5 or 6 people that agree with you and think this is a big deal, so maybe I'm just obtuse. I'm married, so I'm used to being wrong.

[beltjones]

I want the HHF to be tied to someone's actual name, division, member number, date, club name, total target points, time, actual hit factor. In short, reality.

If they can do it, so can I, or Scott, or Kyle.

Just because Bob Beamon set the long jump record in 1968 at 29 feet 2.5 inches, people didn't stop doing the long jump. His record was finally broken in 1991.

Quickly and easily seeing what somebody set the HF record on the El Prez or Six Chickens, etc. should inspire people to try harder, practice more.

Hmm. So wouldn't those people who practiced that particular classifier more be 'd-baggs'? You're confusing me now. I can't tell if you are angry at people that practice or just want better goals to practice towards.

All of your posts are classic examples of bad logical and argumentative techniques. If you're not begging the question you're setting up strawmen and attacking them, or throwing red herrings all over the place.

It doesn't bother me if you think that. It also doesn't bother me if y'all would rather stress about the classification process than about shooting and match results. Clearly there at least 5 or 6 people that agree with you and think this is a big deal, so maybe I'm just obtuse. I'm married, so I'm used to being wrong.

Bam, another straw man! You can't help it!

[motosapiens]

I want the HHF to be tied to someone's actual name, division, member number, date, club name, total target points, time, actual hit factor. In short, reality.

If they can do it, so can I, or Scott, or Kyle.

Just because Bob Beamon set the long jump record in 1968 at 29 feet 2.5 inches, people didn't stop doing the long jump. His record was finally broken in 1991.

Quickly and easily seeing what somebody set the HF record on the El Prez or Six Chickens, etc. should inspire people to try harder, practice more.

Hmm. So wouldn't those people who practiced that particular classifier more be 'd-baggs'? You're confusing me now. I can't tell if you are angry at people that practice or just want better goals to practice towards.

All of your posts are classic examples of bad logical and argumentative techniques. If you're not begging the question you're setting up strawmen and attacking them, or throwing red herrings all over the place.

It doesn't bother me if you think that. It also doesn't bother me if y'all would rather stress about the classification process than about shooting and match results. Clearly there at least 5 or 6 people that agree with you and think this is a big deal, so maybe I'm just obtuse. I'm married, so I'm used to being wrong.

Bam, another straw man! You can't help it!

Bam, another person getting all offended when someone has a different opinion. You can't help it.

don't have a cow, man.

p.s. that's not a straw man.

Edited November 21, 2013 by motosapiens

[motosapiens]

I can see that you feel strongly about this issue, and I don't mean to sound like I'm negating your feelings, I'm just (out of curiousity) struggling to understand *why* you feel so strongly about something that *seems* fairly trivial to me. Do you think there are too many GM's? Not enough? How does the issue even affect you or make a difference? If I got a 10% pay raise at work for making master, I guess I'd feel strongly too. But I don't. Oh well.

I think I finally figured out our disconnect, don't want to speak for chills, but he will chime in if I'm off base. I notice in this post and other posts you have made, that you reference class. Above you reference making Master. That seems to be what dominates your reasoning in many posts. That may be important to you, you bring it up a lot, but for me, I never thought about it that way. I can see now that some do. Let me say again, the determination of HHF should have an established protocol because to me it speaks to the legitimacy of our sport. That's it. I just see a wishy washy procedure and the calibration tech in me wants to fix it. Pretty simple really.

It doesn't really dominate my reasoning, I just can't imagine any other reason why you might care about something that doesn't actually affect the shooting or the results. Is it just an obsessive-compulsive thing? I would probably get more OCD about popper calibration, or 180 violations, or trigger work on cz's in production, or something else that actually does affect shooting and results, but that doesn't mean you're wrong. I totally get fixated on things that seem pretty random to my wife. At any rate, I appreciate the lively exchange of opinions, and I apologize if I accidentally come across as condescending or just as a jackass. I'm just trying to understand and learn more about the sport and kill some time in the cold season by typing on the internet since it's dark and I can't go outside and dryfire in the backyard.

It just doesn't make any dang difference to me at all whether my 7.575 hf on a particular classifer works out to be one percentage or another, as long as it's the same for everyone.

Just pointing out your first couple lines in the post I quoted seem to show exactly what you care about. It seems over and over you want to try and make it some kind of slight on people that want to make the classifier system more legit. You say over and over you don't understand, then you condescendingly ask if it is because of "insert something with negative connotations" like Grandbagging, or OCD.

I told another poster not to apologize for anything, I'll tell you the same, embrace it! You are either the most obtuse shooter I've ever met, or you are condescending jackass. Your words not mine. Personally, I hope condescending jackass is it, because that is fixable, if you are just obtuse, well then, sorry about all that......just hang in there.

Again, I think establishing a "set protocol" for setting HHF's makes the process and USPSA more legitimate. This could be done hundreds of different ways. As long as it would exclude the "set up and burn down" crowd, I'd probably support it.

Another possibility is that you just haven't done a very good of explaining why a 'set protocol' for setting HHF is all that important, and how it will change USPSA, and how it will make anything more 'legitimate'. You just keep repeating the same vague generalities over and over, and using completely off-base analogies like selling a gun but not really delivering it.

I asked some pretty specific questions that you completely ignored. That's why I still don't really understand why this issue is so important to you.

Edited November 21, 2013 by motosapiens

[beltjones]

I want the HHF to be tied to someone's actual name, division, member number, date, club name, total target points, time, actual hit factor. In short, reality.

If they can do it, so can I, or Scott, or Kyle.

Just because Bob Beamon set the long jump record in 1968 at 29 feet 2.5 inches, people didn't stop doing the long jump. His record was finally broken in 1991.

Quickly and easily seeing what somebody set the HF record on the El Prez or Six Chickens, etc. should inspire people to try harder, practice more.

Hmm. So wouldn't those people who practiced that particular classifier more be 'd-baggs'? You're confusing me now. I can't tell if you are angry at people that practice or just want better goals to practice towards.

All of your posts are classic examples of bad logical and argumentative techniques. If you're not begging the question you're setting up strawmen and attacking them, or throwing red herrings all over the place.

It doesn't bother me if you think that. It also doesn't bother me if y'all would rather stress about the classification process than about shooting and match results. Clearly there at least 5 or 6 people that agree with you and think this is a big deal, so maybe I'm just obtuse. I'm married, so I'm used to being wrong.

Bam, another straw man! You can't help it!

Bam, another person getting all offended when someone has a different opinion. You can't help it.

don't have a cow, man.

p.s. that's not a straw man.

It is a straw man. You misrepresented the opposition's position by saying they cared more about the classifier system than about shooting and match results. You could have easily addressed some of their points, but you chose to go all "cable news" and use cheap debate tactics rather than address issues brought up by others.

Even your "getting all offended when someone has a different opinion" thing is a logical fallacy.

[Chills1994]

You'd think a guy with the last name of Weaver and from Idaho would have more of a questioning attitude when it comes to some higher authority saying "we do things this way, X, Y, and Z", and several other posters have clearly shown that is not how things are actually done.

On other forums, posters responding just like motosapiens have earned the monikers of "COINTEL PRO" or "astroturfers".

I am glad to see that at least one BoD member here is going to bring it up. For you guys living in other Areas, if you stayed with this thread this long, you might as well contact your AD as well and let 'em know you want more transparency in the classifier system. Or a records page.

[Chris iliff]

I can see that you feel strongly about this issue, and I don't mean to sound like I'm negating your feelings, I'm just (out of curiousity) struggling to understand *why* you feel so strongly about something that *seems* fairly trivial to me. Do you think there are too many GM's? Not enough? How does the issue even affect you or make a difference? If I got a 10% pay raise at work for making master, I guess I'd feel strongly too. But I don't. Oh well.

I think I finally figured out our disconnect, don't want to speak for chills, but he will chime in if I'm off base. I notice in this post and other posts you have made, that you reference class. Above you reference making Master. That seems to be what dominates your reasoning in many posts. That may be important to you, you bring it up a lot, but for me, I never thought about it that way. I can see now that some do. Let me say again, the determination of HHF should have an established protocol because to me it speaks to the legitimacy of our sport. That's it. I just see a wishy washy procedure and the calibration tech in me wants to fix it. Pretty simple really.

It doesn't really dominate my reasoning, I just can't imagine any other reason why you might care about something that doesn't actually affect the shooting or the results. Is it just an obsessive-compulsive thing? I would probably get more OCD about popper calibration, or 180 violations, or trigger work on cz's in production, or something else that actually does affect shooting and results, but that doesn't mean you're wrong. I totally get fixated on things that seem pretty random to my wife. At any rate, I appreciate the lively exchange of opinions, and I apologize if I accidentally come across as condescending or just as a jackass. I'm just trying to understand and learn more about the sport and kill some time in the cold season by typing on the internet since it's dark and I can't go outside and dryfire in the backyard.

It just doesn't make any dang difference to me at all whether my 7.575 hf on a particular classifer works out to be one percentage or another, as long as it's the same for everyone.

Just pointing out your first couple lines in the post I quoted seem to show exactly what you care about. It seems over and over you want to try and make it some kind of slight on people that want to make the classifier system more legit. You say over and over you don't understand, then you condescendingly ask if it is because of "insert something with negative connotations" like Grandbagging, or OCD.

I told another poster not to apologize for anything, I'll tell you the same, embrace it! You are either the most obtuse shooter I've ever met, or you are condescending jackass. Your words not mine. Personally, I hope condescending jackass is it, because that is fixable, if you are just obtuse, well then, sorry about all that......just hang in there.

Again, I think establishing a "set protocol" for setting HHF's makes the process and USPSA more legitimate. This could be done hundreds of different ways. As long as it would exclude the "set up and burn down" crowd, I'd probably support it.

Another possibility is that you just haven't done a very good of explaining why a 'set protocol' for setting HHF is all that important, and how it will change USPSA, and how it will make anything more 'legitimate'. You just keep repeating the same vague generalities over and over, and using completely off-base analogies like selling a gun but not really delivering it.

I asked some pretty specific questions that you completely ignored. That's why I still don't really understand why this issue is so important to you.

I've never made any analogies. So you have me confused with another poster. I understand though, it's alright. I'll type the rest of this slower.

Legitimate as defined by Webster:

conforming to recognized principles or accepted rules and standard

Protocol as defined by Webster

a code prescribing strict adherence to correct etiquette and precedence

I figured since you are capable of reading and writing that these things would be understood.

Sorry about continually over estimating your mental acuity.

Since it was assumed by so many that there is some kind of established procedure (protocol) in setting the HHF I guess it just seemed nuts to me to find out there is not.

Will it change much? Nope, probably won't even be a blip. I'll be a GM way before USPSA moves on a decision anyway.

Think of it as dotting I's and crossing T's, or getting your ducks in a row. That's all.

I can't help you with your understanding, I've tried to write through my "obtuse reader filter". Hope your day has rainbows. Good luck.

[motosapiens]

It is a straw man. You misrepresented the opposition's position by saying they cared more about the classifier system than about shooting and match results. You could have easily addressed some of their points, but you chose to go all "cable news" and use cheap debate tactics rather than address issues brought up by others.

Even your "getting all offended when someone has a different opinion" thing is a logical fallacy.

Misrepresented? lol, I'm simply asking questions and posing guesses because I can't get any more specific response than meaningless pablum about 'legitimacy'. Just trying to figure out why this issue is important, and what it will help or fix.

[motosapiens]

I figured since you are capable of reading and writing that these things would be understood.

Sorry about continually over estimating your mental acuity.

Since it was assumed by so many that there is some kind of established procedure (protocol) in setting the HHF I guess it just seemed nuts to me to find out there is not.

Will it change much? Nope, probably won't even be a blip. I'll be a GM way before USPSA moves on a decision anyway.

Think of it as dotting I's and crossing T's, or getting your ducks in a row. That's all.

I can't help you with your understanding, I've tried to write through my "obtuse reader filter". Hope your day has rainbows. Good luck.

Okay, so we know you can hurl insults, that is helpful, and you admit that this issue you're so worked up about won't change much (probably won't even be a blip). So we're in agreement there.

I mistakenly thought you were so passionate about this issue because it *would* actually change something meaningful and I was simply failing to understand what that change would be and why it would be better.

[CB45]

9 pg summary....

1. Nobody knows.

2. Some people "don't care", then post over and over bashing those who seek clarity.

3. Its unlikely we will ever know.

I can't believe this thread is still open. I'm glad all the parties involved have remained civil.

[motosapiens]

9 pg summary....

1. Nobody knows.

2. Some people "don't care", then post over and over bashing those who seek clarity.

3. Its unlikely we will ever know.

I can't believe this thread is still open. I'm glad all the parties involved have remained civil.

2. Correction: some people are curious as to what the benefits or effects of a change to the current 'system' would be.

[CB45]

Change? What change?

We voted on change! Look where we are now. Nothings different except the year.

Clarity, Transparency, & Communication.

[whitedog]

Ok. We have a system in place. Right? That system appears to be rather "off". The HHF's are not known. How they got them is not known. Who shot them is not known. That covers it, right?

Now instead of going back and forth using big words and almost insults...how about this. If the present system bothers you, contact your AD. I did. If you don't mind how it is, or don't care, don't contact your AD.

A simple post about a known issue has turned infantile. An opportunity for real answers and/or solutions wasted. Neither sides views have any weight when a discussion degrades like this.

[JakeMartens]

Ok. We have a system in place. Right? That system appears to be rather "off". The HHF's are not known. How they got them is not known. Who shot them is not known. That covers it, right?

Now instead of going back and forth using big words and almost insults...how about this. If the present system bothers you, contact your AD. I did. If you don't mind how it is, or don't care, don't contact your AD.

A simple post about a known issue has turned infantile. An opportunity for real answers and/or solutions wasted. Neither sides views have any weight when a discussion degrades like this.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

gold start post

in other words....stop your crying and if you got a problem with it then follow the correct channels

if you don't and it doesn't bother you, then don't worry about it, and continue on....just in another thread

[whitedog]

Thanks jake....

[RammerJammer]

For the sake of unity I will volunteer to shoot every classifier on the books. From that I will be a base level zero and every score will be a multiplier of mine. Therefore It will be calculated from the worst score and move up. I will post videos and all will be well.

[kneelingatlas]

2. Correction: some people are curious as to what the benefits or effects of a change to the current 'system' would be.

I'm not asking to change the "system" I just want someone to explain it to me, because thus far all explanations have proved to be BS.

[Chills1994]

2. Correction: some people are curious as to what the benefits or effects of a change to the current 'system' would be.

I'm not asking to change the "system" I just want someone to explain it to me, because thus far all explanations have proved to be BS.

Have you emailed your AD?