Why don't we ditch ALL of the classifiers and...

[jhgtyre]

I know a lot of work went into developing the classifiers that we have in ICORE but I have to be honest, they are usually my least favorite stage in a match and it isn't because they are hard. I find most of them to be silly. Shooting the same target 3 times, 6 times, weird reloads just to make it "6 shot neutral". I know this sounds blasphemous but why don't we take a page from IDPA's book and just have one classifier and... lets make the standards the classifier. You wouldn't have to shoot it but once a year, like IDPA does, and it is easy to setup. If there are clubs that don't have 50 yards to do this in then make an exception for shooting what we always called "Half Standards" and just drop the 50 yard shots from the equation.

-ld

[ffl]

But what about us who don't do well on Far and Near? If you only have one standard or classifier it would be much eaiser to sandbag. How easy would it be to fumble a reload on Far and Near and make it look like it was a real fumble just so you can keep your class lower.

BTW You are welcome to submit new potential classifiers to Mel Chan the competions Director. Any and all will be appreaciated.

dcs

[jhgtyre]

Go ahead, sandbag the classifier at the IRC, you'll get slaughtered on your match score.

[jhgtyre]

and, by the way, I am NOT good at Far and Near so this isn't a self serving suggestion.

[ffl]

Actualy Far and Near is not a classifier.

So It does not matter what I shoot other than it hurts my overall finish.

[Brewski]

The IDPA system works fairly well. The only real drawback is that folks who really improve over the year’s time between classifiers can use their newly acquired skills to dominate their class in a sanctioned match. But that is not common in my experience.

What is much more common is that folks practice the classifier and get over classified – and then get pounded in a match. We laugh, they cry – but you can’t go down in classification so folks need to be careful what they wish for...

Over all, it is a fair system that doesn’t interfere with regular match design, nor does it take much time or $ to administer. A really nice side affect is that it heightens sanctioned match drama due to increased importance placed on match bumps.

[jhgtyre]

Actualy Far and Near is not a classifier.

So It does not matter what I shoot other than it hurts my overall finish.

My proposal is that it become the classifier.

[Tom Freeman]

My proposal is that it become the classifier.

Good call.

[jhgtyre]

Making Standards the classifier would eliminate sandbagging at the IRC.

[MWP]

Is there sandbagging at the irc?

[jhgtyre]

They used to give guns away for class wins at the IRC. They haven't done that in years but I think it set a precedent in some peoples minds and they want to keep a lower class in the hopes of winning a gun.

-ld

[MWP]

Couldn't there be a demographic of shooter that shoots lights out on far and near, but can't move well? Former NRA shooters? They shouldn't be classed the same as a jack rabbit that can move and shoot like a maniac on the other 11 stages should they?

Other than classifying people on match performance alone, which would have to be the IRC to get an adequate sample size, classifiers are still the best way to do it. They test the same basic skills needed to compete in each class at those skill levels.

Edited September 23, 2014 by MWP

[jhgtyre]

Since ICORE doesn't use stage points that demographic, guys who shoot Far and Near well, are already given a boost because that stage counts for a LOT in the match. If you shoot it well and others in your class don't you have a big advantage anyway. Why not move that shooter who does well at Far and Near into a class with others who do well at that event?

[MWP]

So, for example, you think the guy that finished 91st at this years IRC, who shot the same score as the guy that won limited, should be classed the same?

A prime example of a B class shooter, who landed right in the middle of B class, who happens to shoot an extremely well long range bullseye stage?

Nothing against that guy, but is he putting up GM level scores on any other stages?

The 14th place overall shot the lowest score on far and near, but was a very long way from even winning his class.

I don't think it's right to penalize an A or B class shooter by making him a M or GM just because he practices and probably takes a huge amount of pride in the most feared stage in that match.

Matches are won with draws, reloads, movement, and sight pictures. All at a much higher speed than what is required in that one stage. People should be classified the exact same way.

Edited September 23, 2014 by MWP

[jhgtyre]

The only thing Far and Near really lacks is movement. It has draws, rapid sight acquisitions, reloads, insane accuracy requirements and you better be fast as well. It even has strong hand/weak hand. It is our set of Standards. If it doesn't represent the skills required by our sport then why does it exist?

[MWP]

Why it exists, I have no idea. I hated shooting it, and I think I had a decent score on it for my first time. I don't want it to go away, because I like that it tests a skill that is rarely challenged in today's action shooting games.

It does test those skills, but the level the top guys are drawing and moving and reloading are not being shown in that particular stage. A shooter can draw to first shot well above 2 seconds, and have relatively slow shots and reloads and still score well.

Every other stage, the top shooters can score target points at all As, but be drawing under a second, and reloading well under 2 seconds.

Far and near absolutely shows an impressive set of skills. But the fact that it's only one small part of one an entire sport limits it's uses. How many clubs shoot that stage once a year at the local level?

Wolff could have shot a 34, Olhasso could have shot a 55, and they both still would have won. Why? Because they draw, shoot, reload and move faster than everyone else, accurately. That's what the game is about, and that's what current classifiers test.

[art mc]

I have a love hate relationship with far and near. But strongly recommend if you only can practice one stage this it. Has everything but movement. Since accuracy is so important as stated above and has a lot of the revolver shooting elements.

art mc

[Bubber]

Actualy Far and Near is not a classifier.

So It does not matter what I shoot other than it hurts my overall finish.

My proposal is that it become the classifier.

jhtgyre. One issue using the Far and Near as a classifier is that if one has shot a Far And Near in 5 seconds a ten second run is only at 50% and heaven forbid some actually zeros it, you cannot divide by zero to get a percentile at all. I do agree that there are some classifiers which does not test a shooters skills sufficiently. When I designed classifiers I had in mind what was the predominate skill was to be tested and by all means get some new ones out there and retire some of the other ones. You will notice that some classifiers are not shot much which may not be the fault of the designer.

[dirtysanchez]

Given that I am the example used above, I think it is a good example of not using one match or stage to classify people. While it is true I was a fair way behind the winner of my grade, in the past years I have shot the IRC I have 2 grade wins and a second. I struggle with classifiers, don't shoot them often, certainly don't practise them. I have usually shot reasonable F&N in years past, but better on the other stages too. Not so this year. F&N was almost last stage, and I focussed hard on salvaging something from the match. That stage allowed it. As MWP points out, my finish in that stage would grade me above my skill level, I think. On a one off basis? I don't really think that's appropriate. Having said that, I think the point raised by the OP is relevant. Maybe we need to look at the classifiers we have...........

[jhgtyre]

I don't think there is a big problem lumping shooters together who shoot a 0, 5 or 10 on the Far and Near. Those are all Grand Master scores in my opinion. Maybe that is off and the 10 second guy is merely a master but the point is that the Far and Near SHOULD be representative of the skills required to excel in our sport and should be a good measure of your classification. If it isn't then maybe Far and Near needs examination and tweaking so that it does represent the actual skills required to excel in ICORE. Just take the Far and Near Times from the last 10 or 20 IRC's and use those to come up with rankings.

0-10 GM

10.01 - 15 M

15.01 - 20 A

or whatever distribution seems fair. If someone goes below zero they are quite obviously a GM and should be ranked as such.

Regardless we shouldn't be afraid to examine our measures of skill whether it be the Classification System or the Far and Near Standards. These things need to be kept up to date and relevant for today's shooting community.

-ld

[Bubber]

I do agree that the system should evolve. ICORE used to be a lot of stand and shoots with a little run and gun. Now there is more run and gun, which is more fun as it were. The classifiers have not been a good test of run and gun. Getting into position, shooting then getting out and in the next position. There are a few but seldom that I see that are set up at the local matches. JMO. rdd

[underlug]

The only thing Far and Near really lacks is movement. It has draws, rapid sight acquisitions, reloads, insane accuracy requirements and you better be fast as well. It even has strong hand/weak hand. It is our set of Standards. If it doesn't represent the skills required by our sport then why does it exist?

To piss off Carmoney

[jhgtyre]

The only thing Far and Near really lacks is movement. It has draws, rapid sight acquisitions, reloads, insane accuracy requirements and you better be fast as well. It even has strong hand/weak hand. It is our set of Standards. If it doesn't represent the skills required by our sport then why does it exist?

To piss off Carmoney

That may be the most cogent argument favoring the status quo to date.

[seanc]

The IDPA classifier is mathmatically and statistically probably the worst possible classification system in all shooting sports. The test itself is fine, how the results are applied is laughably terrible.

Edited September 25, 2014 by seanc

[seanc]

Actualy Far and Near is not a classifier.

So It does not matter what I shoot other than it hurts my overall finish.

My proposal is that it become the classifier.

not all, in fact I would argue maybe more than half of clubs don't have an appropriate 50 yard pit to run the stage. 1 of our local clubs that runs ICORE also as a matter of club rules, disallows going prone which is of considerable benefit on far and near.

Edited September 25, 2014 by seanc