List problems with 13 series classifiers

[Chris iliff]

I was perusing these in my new Chris Keen classifier log book (shameless plug, PM him for yours) and found some errors. Thought I'd start a thread so we could log any problems and hopefully get them fixed.

The first problem I found was in CM 13-05. There is no indication as to where to put the X on the table that my trigger guard is suppose to go over. So different clubs could put it in different places. This might change the times a bit.

Another problem might be CM 13-09. The whole stage is a mirror off the "center line". Except T3 and T4, which shows the edge of T3's NO SHOOT right on the centerline and the edge of T4's NO SHOOT 12 inches to the right of the centerline. I was thinking this might be a miss print because all the other arrays are equal distance from the center line. If so, should it be 12" to each array or 6".

[beltjones]

13-02:

Instead of providing measurements from the center line for each target, they offer the following:

"Space targets 1/2 target width towards center line each target, and face to shooter to avoid shoot-throughs."

I get the "fact to shooter" thing, but if anyone can interpret the first part of that note I would appreciate it.

[beltjones]

13-04:

If they're using the hit factor from 2012 Nationals it's going to be messed up because the stage as constructed at Nats is different from the classifier diagram.

[Chris Keen]

13-04:

If they're using the hit factor from 2012 Nationals it's going to be messed up because the stage as constructed at Nats is different from the classifier diagram.

The same goes for 13-05 Tick Tock. L & R targets were completely exposed & much farther away at Nationals, but in the Classifier is only 21 ft. and the L & R targets are partials.

[ZackJones]

13-05 - Start Description "All magazines to be used on the stage must be on the table."

Revolvers don't use magazines .

[sperman]

13-05 - I would assume the targets are supposed to be aligned vertically, but the close up view shows the targets offset slightly. If they are supposed to be offset, there is no measurement for how far to offset it.

[motosapiens]

13-04 makes it seem like on the 2nd string you have to engage t1 first, and then t3. Normally such targets can be engaged in any order, and it certainly puts lefties at a bit of a disadvantage to interpret it that way. Suggest adding language to clarify that you can go t1 then t3 or t3 then t1.

[eric4069]

13-04 makes it seem like on the 2nd string you have to engage t1 first, and then t3. Normally such targets can be engaged in any order, and it certainly puts lefties at a bit of a disadvantage to interpret it that way. Suggest adding language to clarify that you can go t1 then t3 or t3 then t1.

As a leftie myself, I very much agree with this suggestion and will be sending it to my AD (Flex).

Eric

[eric4069]

13-04 makes it seem like on the 2nd string you have to engage t1 first, and then t3. Normally such targets can be engaged in any order, and it certainly puts lefties at a bit of a disadvantage to interpret it that way. Suggest adding language to clarify that you can go t1 then t3 or t3 then t1.

As a leftie myself, I very much agree with this suggestion and will be sending it to my AD (Flex).

Eric

email sent to Flex and to dnroi.

eric

[ZackJones]

13-04 makes it seem like on the 2nd string you have to engage t1 first, and then t3. Normally such targets can be engaged in any order, and it certainly puts lefties at a bit of a disadvantage to interpret it that way. Suggest adding language to clarify that you can go t1 then t3 or t3 then t1.

For my own education can you explain why the order in which you engage the targets, as currently written, puts lefties at a disadvantage? I'm naturally right handed but have shot a match or two left handed. Is it the fact that as a lefty you're moving your hand left to right and a righty moves left to right which is a more natural movement? Thanks in advance for clearing up my confusion

[sperman]

Since it is an uprange start, most shooters turn into their gun. For right handed shooters, the first target you see is T1. For left handed shooters, you have to swing past T3 to get to T1.

[eric4069]

Since it is an uprange start, most shooters turn into their gun. For right handed shooters, the first target you see is T1. For left handed shooters, you have to swing past T3 to get to T1.

This.

As a leftie, when we have a start position "facing uprange", I prefer to turn counterclockwise ('into the gun"). Easiest for me to take T3 first rather than swinging right past it all the way to T1 to fire my first shot.

Eric

[motosapiens]

13-04 makes it seem like on the 2nd string you have to engage t1 first, and then t3. Normally such targets can be engaged in any order, and it certainly puts lefties at a bit of a disadvantage to interpret it that way. Suggest adding language to clarify that you can go t1 then t3 or t3 then t1.

For my own education can you explain why the order in which you engage the targets, as currently written, puts lefties at a disadvantage? I'm naturally right handed but have shot a match or two left handed. Is it the fact that as a lefty you're moving your hand left to right and a righty moves left to right which is a more natural movement? Thanks in advance for clearing up my confusion

sperman's reply above explains it. It's not really exclusively a lefty issue, but most people seem to prefer (and are usually encouraged) to turn towards their strong side from an uprange start, and so that seems to be what most people practice most of the time.

Also, I suspect that many people have a preference for what direction to move when engaging targets. It just feels more natural for me to go left to right. I practice both ways, but unless there is some good cof-related reason to go right to left, I usually go left to right.

We ran this classifier over the weekend, and we let the 1 leftie on our squad shoot t3 first. I gave it some thought and figured that it must have just been an oversight to not clarify the wording further.

[ZackJones]

Appreciate education guys. Very informative. Thanks!

[Chris iliff]

Hopefully Flex is watching this thread and can take these questions with him to his next meeting.

[Tim/GA]

13-04 makes it seem like on the 2nd string you have to engage t1 first, and then t3. Normally such targets can be engaged in any order, and it certainly puts lefties at a bit of a disadvantage to interpret it that way. Suggest adding language to clarify that you can go t1 then t3 or t3 then t1.

Also, the setup is odd. "Edges of NS targets are aligned with edges of C zone on T2". Note it says edge of target, not perf. While I hate perf on perf setups- the idea of perfs is that the edge of the target is non-existent since it can be damaged or be different size from target to target.

[motosapiens]

13-04 makes it seem like on the 2nd string you have to engage t1 first, and then t3. Normally such targets can be engaged in any order, and it certainly puts lefties at a bit of a disadvantage to interpret it that way. Suggest adding language to clarify that you can go t1 then t3 or t3 then t1.

Also, the setup is odd. "Edges of NS targets are aligned with edges of C zone on T2". Note it says edge of target, not perf. While I hate perf on perf setups- the idea of perfs is that the edge of the target is non-existent since it can be damaged or be different size from target to target.

we interpreted that to mean perfs aligned (which I don't really mind, although i understand the reasoning against), since the edges of the target outside the perfs don't really exist.

To me, all those subtle little lawyer-ish details are kind of like the raider fans whining about the tuck rule and the woodson 'safety' in the end zone on a recoverd fumble. If you just do it right in the first place, the rest of that crap doesn't matter. Just don't hit the perfs.

[cnote]

And they're off...

[sperman]

We ran this classifier over the weekend, and we let the 1 leftie on our squad shoot t3 first. I gave it some thought and figured that it must have just been an oversight to not clarify the wording further.

we interpreted that to mean perfs aligned (which I don't really mind, although i understand the reasoning against), since the edges of the target outside the perfs don't really exist.

Whether they are oversights or not, you can't just interpret this stuff to mean whatever you want it to mean. Set it up the way it is written, and shoot it per the WSB. If you think something is wrong, contact HQ.

[motosapiens]

We ran this classifier over the weekend, and we let the 1 leftie on our squad shoot t3 first. I gave it some thought and figured that it must have just been an oversight to not clarify the wording further.

we interpreted that to mean perfs aligned (which I don't really mind, although i understand the reasoning against), since the edges of the target outside the perfs don't really exist.

Whether they are oversights or not, you can't just interpret this stuff to mean whatever you want it to mean. Set it up the way it is written, and shoot it per the WSB. If you think something is wrong, contact HQ.

We set it up the way we thought it was written. I agree it could be written more clearly to keep someone else from interpreting it differently.

[sperman]

13-04:

If they're using the hit factor from 2012 Nationals it's going to be messed up because the stage as constructed at Nats is different from the classifier diagram.

The same goes for 13-05 Tick Tock. L & R targets were completely exposed & much farther away at Nationals, but in the Classifier is only 21 ft. and the L & R targets are partials.

A friend shot this yesterday and said his score is way above his classification. I think this one needs to go before it causes too many people to get bumped.

Also what is a "standard height table?" Is it really that hard to call out a measurement?

[sperman]

13-02:

Instead of providing measurements from the center line for each target, they offer the following:

"Space targets 1/2 target width towards center line each target, and face to shooter to avoid shoot-throughs."

I get the "fact to shooter" thing, but if anyone can interpret the first part of that note I would appreciate it.

This is another one that I've heard people are getting scores above their classification.

[motosapiens]

13-02:

Instead of providing measurements from the center line for each target, they offer the following:

"Space targets 1/2 target width towards center line each target, and face to shooter to avoid shoot-throughs."

I get the "fact to shooter" thing, but if anyone can interpret the first part of that note I would appreciate it.

This is another one that I've heard people are getting scores above their classification.

It seems like people have expressed this concern previously when new classifiers are introduced.

devil's advocate; perhaps the HHF when set at a match (when the winner is typically NOT In 'hero or zero' mode) is lower than the HHF that gets adjusted after years of people practicing the same classifier over and over.

I'm a noob, but I know I can score better on a stage if I get 10 tries at it over a couple months and take the best score compared to shooting it once for score in a match that I want to do well in.

Edited January 6, 2014 by motosapiens

[CZinSC]

I believe most of the issues here are that the current WSB's have the stage setup differnently than they were set up at Nationals. See below, this is 13-02 run at our local two weeks ago. Big difference. The stage on the left was setup per the WSB. The distances are correct.

Here is another one. this is last weekend 13-05. See a difference?

If they are basing current scores off of the high marks at Nats for these stages, there will be a lot of over-ranked people out there. I got bumped to A because of these "13" classifiers, and now I'm probably going to be bumped to Master. I'm hoping something changes with the update this month and the scores are adjusted down, but i'm not counting on it.

[motosapiens]

I don't know that those photos provide much info. The ones from nationals are taken from considerably further behind the shooter.