idpa classifier...do your absolute best?

[Bones]

In an academic sense, Bones' analysis is interesting, but it's also not very realistic. Does anyone see any real evidence that match promotions are why so many USPSA B shooters are master in IDPA? I think the classifier times are the more likely suspect.

Its beyond academic and, in my experience and observation, very real.

In the independent IDPA match bump system, promotion is relative only to 9 other competitors at that location at that match. In broadly, linked calibrated systems like USPSA and ICORE, all performances are always relative to the best of the entire population all the time.

Moreover, forcing promotions before basic skills can be demonstrated via the Classifier accelerates and amplifies this situation - as the exercise above shows. In USPA or ICORE, without a repeated and sustained demonstration of improvement linked to a 100% calibration line, all 100 of those competitors would stay at the level at which they entered the system, regardless of match finish.

The IDPA Classifier times are not 100% lines. The best shooters can easily best MA times in any Division on demand on any given day. The very best IDPA shooters can shoot the Classifier in 65 seconds or less. Using that as a 100% line, for example, would mean that 85% of that (as is required to make MA in USPSA) is 77 seconds. I have met very few IDPA MAs who can demonstrate that skill level on demand. The fastest IDPA MA time requirement is 89 seconds - 73% of the 65 second 100% line. That is equivalent to B class in USPSA. That explains why the "average" IDPA MA could easily be a B class shooter in USPSA based on Classifier scores alone. Promoting people to MA via the unlinked match promotion path who cannot demonstrate the minimum IDPA requirements on demand only amplifies the effect.

As an anecdotal example, you need to repeatedly demonstrate a certain absolute skill set to shoot 85% of Rob Leatham in 4 USPSA SS Classifiers (and be promoted to MA) but 1:10 CDP EX is ALWAYS going to be promoted to MA at a Major match, regardless of absolute skill level. If they are all 70% of (take your pick - Shelby, Olhasso, Vogel, Burwell, etc.) one of them MUST be promoted. The distribution is forced further and further to the right by the unlinked match promotion system.

I pass no judgement on any of them, but the math and logic is what it is.

Craig

Edited August 29, 2013 by Bones

[sbcman]

I can dig it! I think a system like that would be incredibly helpful in a number of ways.

This is a little different than dealing with match bumps but just as an example here it is. This year I have went from ESR/SS to ESR/EX to ESR/MA. I won ESR/SS at the indoor nats and the next week back shot an ESR/EX time. Since then I've shot 4 majors that had a total of 6 ESR/EX in them and DC'ed those matches. I decided to work towards ESR/MA because I felt as was performing at either a high EX level or probably low MA level. I made it last month with 99.9.

But how could I really know where I'm at with the whole field basing it off that few shooters??? Craig's math would answer that for me.

[motosapiens]

The IDPA Classifier times are not 100% lines. The best shooters can easily best MA times in any Division on demand on any given day. The very best IDPA shooters can shoot the Classifier in 65 seconds or less. Using that as a 100% line, for example, would mean that 85% of that (as is required to make MA in USPSA) is 77 seconds. I have met very few IDPA MAs who can demonstrate that skill level on demand. The fastest IDPA MA time requirement is 89 seconds - 73% of the 65 second 100% line. That is equivalent to B class in USPSA. That explains why the "average" IDPA MA could easily be a B class shooter in USPSA based on Classifier scores alone.

Okay, so you agree with me that classifier times in IDPA are pretty easy, and that's why it's so easy to make master. Cool.

It sounds like you are also saying that the match bumps are an even easier path to master. In general, I would be surprised if 10 experts showed up to a match and the best of them wasn't a real idpa-master, but I've only been to one major so far (and the guy that won expert ssp and got bumped was definitely a master by IDPA standards).

I have to admit, I don't really care very much about this subject (but I do like to argue). I really only look at the overall anyway, so whether someone is master, expert or sandbagger, after a few matches I'll have a pretty good idea of where I stand in comparison, and that helps me figure out if I'm improving.

[Bones]

I am simply pointing out that it is easier to demonstrate either basic shooting skills or turn in a winning performance on any given day than to do both, and that IDPA shooters will generally not be at parity with seemingly equal Classifications of sports that require both at any Classification level (C-MM, B-SS, A-EX, M-MA, etc..). Recall that in other sports, Classifiers are required to be incorporated into Major matches.

Even if they are held as separate events, requiring both a match performance AND a Classifier score to be promoted would not require any more data than already exists and would give a much more complete view of skills than either event independently.

The system would not, however, advance people nearly as quickly.

If the goal is to advance shooters as soon as possible, the current system is more effective than others.

Craig

[motosapiens]

I am simply pointing out that it is easier to demonstrate either basic shooting skills or turn in a winning performance on any given day than to do both, and that IDPA shooters will generally not be at parity with seemingly equal Classifications of sports that require both at any Classification level (C-MM, B-SS, A-EX, M-MA, etc..). Recall that in other sports, Classifiers are required to be incorporated into Major matches.

I get it now. Sorry for being dense. I think you make a valid point. But like I said, I pretty much ignore the classes anyway (in idpa and uspsa both) and look at the overall.

[Cd662]

"I've gamed and practiced the snot out of the IDPA Classifier trying to make Master, yet my placement in field matches is very similar among other Experts and Masters. "

I don't understand how you can "game" very clear cut, low round count strings of fire. Can you explain?

[Dirtychemist]

Should you push yourself and do your absolute best at an idpa classifier?

Or is there a "gaming" advantage to doing a little less than your best and grouping in a class lower? Kind of like a wrestler being the heaviest in a given weight class...

I'm a fairly new shooter and currently unclassified at this time. I'm just curious....I've never been to anything more than local match.

Soot your best. Don't sandbag. Keep yourself in a lower class and continually place in the top until a classifier, no thanks. I'd rather compete against myself and see how I'm doing.

[Givo08]

I have generally found that if you develop the skills to shoot the classifier at the master level, you are generally going to be pretty competitive in regular matches as well. If you classify master it means you did pretty well on stage 3. It's not like there is really that much movement in most regular IDPA stages, and most matches don't have 3 targets at 20 yds in one stage (and sometimes in the whole match) like stage 3 of the classifier.

[Givo08]

Also, I am not a fan of match bumps unless they only did them at the largest matches (Nationals, Carolina Cup, etc).

I've seen people get bumped way too often because they shot in a match that just wasn't very competitive. I also think the majority of people who get a match bump can't shoot the classifier at the level they are bumped too even after the bump. I think that's one reason you see a "watered down" master class compared to USPSA.

[Yoder]

I always try to do my best but end up shooting below my abillity. I think I'm putting too much pressure on myself. If I place first in my classification at a shoot it really means nothing to me if I don't place first overall. Some guys I shoot with look at a first place in the division as a win. I see it as first place in sharp shooter is for example 15th place overall I shot 15th place. If I shot a revolver I would think differently since it is so much harder.

[BillR1]

If I place first in my classification at a shoot it really means nothing to me if I don't place first overall. Some guys I shoot with look at a first place in the division as a win. I see it as first place in sharp shooter is for example 15th place overall I shot 15th place.

I would agree with you if you're talking about a local match. In a state/regional match, I see nothing wrong with someone being proud of a class or division win. They shouldn't feel badly that they can't yet compete head-head with a master-class shooter. A class win is something to be proud of at a big match, IMO.

[Moltke]

Well there's the idea of winning, and then there's "placing well". Most of us aren't going to outright win matches, but we do look to "place well". I know at my skill level, I'm not going to beat the Masters or top level guys, but I still want to do well in the competition. And along those lines of doing as well as I can, I am going to try to be the highest classification that I can, so when I "place well" it is against my peers.

[motosapiens]

Well there's the idea of winning, and then there's "placing well". Most of us aren't going to outright win matches, but we do look to "place well". I know at my skill level, I'm not going to beat the Masters or top level guys, but I still want to do well in the competition. And along those lines of doing as well as I can, I am going to try to be the highest classification that I can, so when I "place well" it is against my peers.

Who are your 'peers'? other people who haven't practiced enough yet?

For me, placing well means being closer to the top. If I was 50th out of 100 last year, I'd like to improve on that this year.and be 40th or 30th, and continue improving. Winning my 'class' usually means one of two things, either I got lucky and all the good guys were busy somewhere else, or I'm sandbagging and really belong in the next higher class anyway.

But other people can look at it in whatever way motivates them. I will only mock people if they brag about a class 'win'. The way I look at it, I'm not even shooting against other shooters, I'm shooting against myself, and striving only to improve my skills and my ability to demonstrate those skills in a match setting. If I keep improving, then the results against other shooters will take care of themselves.

[BillR1]

In all of the state/regional matches I've ever shot in, the final results don't even include so-called "overall" standings. All they show is your placement within your class. In a big match, those are the results I care about anyway. It's fun to compare my times to the big guys, but I sure don't have any illusions of being able to actually compete with Glenn Shelby or other world-class shooters at this point in my life.

[motosapiens]

It's trickier to compare scores in IDPA. I like the uspsa percentage system, because I can track my improvement as my percentage of the winner's score goes up. with idpa i have to get my calculator out to figure how close I am to the top dogs.

[Moltke]

Explanation of "peers".

Even though this is an IDPA thread, most of my experience is USPSA, but I'll tie it back into IDPA - I promise.

Maybe my perspective on performance is skewed because in my area (northern VA), I commonly shoot against Grand Masters at local matches - Todd Jarrett is a good example but others are Steve Anderson when he comes to town, Ron Francisco, JJ, others. Those guys are not in my peer group. I consider people who are near me in skill level to be my peers, and people that I usually place near to be peers, such as the other A class shooters, some lower Masters, some higher B class shooters. I don't see much reason to compare my performance to C & D class shooters, or to GM's, there's just no point. The gaps between skill and performance is miles wide.

Generally I consider it to be a good match if I can answer a few questions positively: 1) Did I minimize my mistakes? 2) Did I shoot 90% Alphas? 3) Did I call every shot? - Then looking back on each course of fire, if I know what I did right / wrong, that's even better. So based on how I feel about those things, I don't really need to see the scoresheet to know how I'm doing, but it verifies my guestimate when I see how I placed against my "peers". Peers being the people I menioned earlier - A class, low Masters, high B class. Sometimes you end up at the top / middle / bottom of that mix, but over time you shoot with the same people every week or two around the area, you know who your peers are and aren't.

Tieing this back to IDPA, I just don't see any reason to purposefully classify lower so you can constantly beat people who aren't your peers. And on the flip side of the coin, I don't see any reason to practice the IDPA classifier until you can do it in your sleep, then achieve Master on paper, but not be able to shoot a field course with similar proficiency. What's the point of being a Master if you're going to be the last place Master at every match, possibly being beaten by lower ranked shooters consistently? I guess it can make you feel good when you brag to non-competition shooters that you "won" the Markmsman class, or that you've achieved "Master" rank... but then if you're not going to really play the sport, why bother with it at all?

[motosapiens]

I don't see much reason to compare my performance to C & D class shooters, or to GM's, there's just no point. The gaps between skill and performance is miles wide.

I see it differently. I *prefer* to compare my performance to M's and GM's and *any* shooters that are better than me. Yes, the gap can be wide, but I can measure that gap, and the match winners are typically performing at a pretty consistent level, so the size of that gap can be a good indicator of how I did. My intent is to make that gap narrower.

[RexKramer]

When comparing scores after an IDPA match where I shoot SSP-EX, I look at the overall and the all scores in SSP/ESP. To me, there is no real difference between those two. I don't see the point in looking at the revolvers and CDP is close, but you have to account for the fact they are dealing with a higher power factor and most likely more mag reloads (sometimes they get a better spot to reload because of it, though).

Oh, and I would NEVER sandbag a classifier. If I could get MA and never have to do a SSP classifier, that would be a-ok by me!

[BillR1]

I don't see much reason to compare my performance to C & D class shooters, or to GM's, there's just no point. The gaps between skill and performance is miles wide.

I see it differently. I *prefer* to compare my performance to M's and GM's and *any* shooters that are better than me. Yes, the gap can be wide, but I can measure that gap, and the match winners are typically performing at a pretty consistent level, so the size of that gap can be a good indicator of how I did. My intent is to make that gap narrower.

Good points.

[Moltke]

It's good to track the M's and GM's because you see the standards you need to achieve to compete on their level, and then continually work towards those goals, but in the meantime - until you're competing against the M's and GM's you may find it a useful training tool to evaluate your performance against your peers. An example of this would be when someone in your peer group who doesn't usually beat you, edges you out in a match or course of fire. Personally I would want to know if it was something I did wrong, or they did something extra right, if so then what?. Ignoring that data before evaluating it's usefulness when conducting self analysis may hurt development of your next training plan, or prevent you from learning something, and will possibly hold you back. (Just my feelings.)

I just want to re-iterate that sandbagging is stupid and counterproductive to your own personal development. If you care about your shooting, it's not something that should even be considered. If you don't care about your shooting, then just stay at home.

[motosapiens]

It's good to track the M's and GM's because you see the standards you need to achieve to compete on their level, and then continually work towards those goals, but in the meantime - until you're competing against the M's and GM's you may find it a useful training tool to evaluate your performance against your peers. An example of this would be when someone in your peer group who doesn't usually beat you, edges you out in a match or course of fire. Personally I would want to know if it was something I did wrong, or they did something extra right, if so then what?.

That makes sense, but the easiest way for me to evaluate that situation is to compare my score to the top overall guys, and see if I was closer or further from them. If Bob beat me for the first time, but I feel like I shot well and was closer to the overall winner's scores than normal, I'm going to figger bob has been practicing, and I'll congratulate him on his improvement. OTOH, if I finally beat bob for the first time ever,but bob had a malfunction meltdown on one stage, then beating him is not meaningful. I might even beat him if I shot poorly.

[Yoder]

If I place first in my classification at a shoot it really means nothing to me if I don't place first overall. Some guys I shoot with look at a first place in the division as a win. I see it as first place in sharp shooter is for example 15th place overall I shot 15th place.

I would agree with you if you're talking about a local match. In a state/regional match, I see nothing wrong with someone being proud of a class or division win. They shouldn't feel badly that they can't yet compete head-head with a master-class shooter. A class win is something to be proud of at a big match, IMO.

I agree with you there. A local match with forty guys is a lot different from a sanctioned match with 200.

[motosapiens]

If I place first in my classification at a shoot it really means nothing to me if I don't place first overall. Some guys I shoot with look at a first place in the division as a win. I see it as first place in sharp shooter is for example 15th place overall I shot 15th place.

I would agree with you if you're talking about a local match. In a state/regional match, I see nothing wrong with someone being proud of a class or division win. They shouldn't feel badly that they can't yet compete head-head with a master-class shooter. A class win is something to be proud of at a big match, IMO.

I agree with you there. A local match with forty guys is a lot different from a sanctioned match with 200.

So if you beat a *bunch* of other people who haven't practiced enough to get classed higher, that's good, but if you only beat a few people who haven't practiced, that's not as good?

lulz.

[Moltke]

I assume by mentioning "practiced enough" that you're alluding to the idea that anyone who practices the IDPA classifier over and over can make Master, thereby giving the classification/rank "Master" little to no significance?

So then, if the rank has little to no significance, I can understand why the only viable way to judge performance would be a 1-N list in your division regardless of shooter classifications, and where you are in relation to 1st place.

[Jim Watson]

The IDPA Classifier is so long and involved it is difficult to fit into a match and have any time and space left for novelty stages.

I have seen it twice; the First Annual Nationals, when few shooters had had an opportunity to classify, and the First Annual Summer Sizzler in Tennessee several years ago.

The Sizzler was interesting. They broke the Classifier up into a number of individual stages scattered over six bays and two days along with a number of scenarios to keep things "fun." A two day match with around twenty total stages gave them a lot of flexibility. They could not use it for actual reclassification, not being shot as one continuous spasm. But the results were interesting nevertheless. The score table had the Classifier sub stages broken out and totaled. It was color coded so you could tell at a glance whether you had shot your official classification, above, or below. I no longer have that table, but recall that it was peppered with red, green, and black apparently at random. That was the only time I have ever kinda sorta classified Expert, although I have since made it there by match promotions.

An early activist wrote a shorter classifier, I think 54 rounds instead of 90, claimed to test the same skills. That could have been included in a sanctioned match without diluting the novelty events much. And I think it should. But it was roundly ignored by management, so here we are.