seanc Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 The IDPA classifier is mathmatically and statistically is probably the worst possible classification system in all shooting sports. The test itself is fine, how the results are applied is laughably terrible. 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. Unrelated, AFAIK you are relatively new to ICORE? Far and Near at the IRC has a long long history of being loved or hated by different factions. The par time has alot to do with that hate. The history I was given was ICORE was meant to be a mixture of steel, uspsa, and bianchi style shooting. Far and near is very bianchi, fixed shooting positions, shots limited, par times, accuracy of the highest premium... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanc Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 (edited) I will say this regarding the classification system. In my case, it is literally almost exactly perfect. On classifiers over the last years, I have a 76% average. At the last two IRC's against the two best open revolver shooters, I shot exactly 76%. The classifiers in my case are insanely accuate at putting you in a bucket that is reality. If I could change anything about ICORE it would be the scoring system which has a disaster factor that is very high.... Edited September 25, 2014 by seanc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanc Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 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 I think far and near might not last forever and it shouldn't be assumed that the stage will be in every IRC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWP Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 The IDPA classifier is mathmatically and statistically is probably the worst possible classification system in all shooting sports. The test itself is fine, how the results are applied is laughably terrible. 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. Unrelated, AFAIK you are relatively new to ICORE? Far and Near at the IRC has a long long history of being loved or hated by different factions. The par time has alot to do with that hate. The history I was given was ICORE was meant to be a mixture of steel, uspsa, and bianchi style shooting. Far and near is very bianchi, fixed shooting positions, shots limited, par times, accuracy of the highest premium... Not sure if we are on the same page Sean, you kinda lost me on that last one. I am very new to ICORE, only 1 match so far, and another coming this weekend. I think far and near is a great stage. Bianchi to a tee. I also think there's some room for me to pick up a few more points in the future. I personally don't want it to go anywhere. I just don't think it's a good classifier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanc Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 The IDPA classifier is mathmatically and statistically is probably the worst possible classification system in all shooting sports. The test itself is fine, how the results are applied is laughably terrible. 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. Unrelated, AFAIK you are relatively new to ICORE? Far and Near at the IRC has a long long history of being loved or hated by different factions. The par time has alot to do with that hate. The history I was given was ICORE was meant to be a mixture of steel, uspsa, and bianchi style shooting. Far and near is very bianchi, fixed shooting positions, shots limited, par times, accuracy of the highest premium... Not sure if we are on the same page Sean, you kinda lost me on that last one. I am very new to ICORE, only 1 match so far, and another coming this weekend. I think far and near is a great stage. Bianchi to a tee. I also think there's some room for me to pick up a few more points in the future. I personally don't want it to go anywhere. I just don't think it's a good classifier. Nah, just a little history about the stage as I know it. I am relatively new to shooting sports, but I think the idea of having a "standards" stage in a major match is a good one, though I know it is pretty hated by most. I am ambivelent about the stage myself, I do practice it though, and that changes my opinion about it. In prior years(3 years ago) I actually practiced that stage to the exclusion of all other things. I dry fired and shot that stage for more than 6 months and it was the totality of my practice. It pulled up my shooting and reload dramatically and was a worthy endeavor as far as I am concerned. You could make the stage a singlular classifier, but it would be just 1 of the classifiers in the menu of all classifiers. I think making it the single classifier is terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmoney Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWP Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 I hope it doesn't leave the IRC. I think it's a match make or break, and it shows who the truely skilled shooters are today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carmoney Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Actually, I would be in favor of eliminating the class system entirely. We rarely have enough participation at ICORE matches for it to be meaningful. At our Midwest Regional in Iowa there was no class recognition whatsoever, and I don't think anybody missed it a bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWP Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Heads up overall? Fine with me. Pretty sure that's how this years prize table went at the IRC, no sandbagger benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alecmc Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 not that my vote matters, i've never shot far and near, or the IRC. But i'd say leave it. It looks like a devilish stage, but think it should be left alone. As far as making it the one and only icore classifier is sort of silly, make it 1 classifier out of another 20? Sure no big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanc Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Heads up overall? Fine with me. Pretty sure that's how this years prize table went at the IRC, no sandbagger benefits. This sentiment is alot easier to have when you are near the top. When you are down in the middle of the pack, the buckles are nice I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MWP Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 Heads up overall? Fine with me. Pretty sure that's how this years prize table went at the IRC, no sandbagger benefits. This sentiment is alot easier to have when you are near the top. When you are down in the middle of the pack, the buckles are nice I think. Very true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtysanchez Posted September 25, 2014 Share Posted September 25, 2014 I think I agree with sean. Under your system JHG, I would now be a GM. My last 3 IRC overall finishes put me firmly in the grade that I hold. Having said that I do enjoy the challenge of F&N, and I don't want it going anywhere. I just don't think as a one and only classifier, it would work fairly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 (edited) Maybe someone could design a few new classifiers and maybe some should be retired. I don't believe getting g rid of the classification system would help anything. There was enough in each class in limited at the southern to award class plaques. I am putting g the final touches on a rule proposal that will allow match finishes to be included in your classification. I don't believe the IDPA style classifier is all good or all that bad. I don't know of its a good fit for ICORE. I don't believe the far and near is the key but parts of it could be. Edited September 27, 2014 by ChrisC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtysanchez Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 What matches would you include in the proposal, Chris? Regionals or higher? Or any "sanctioned" match? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Regionals or higher. There will have to be x number of GM's in the division for your percentage to count Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alecmc Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 Regionals or higher. There will have to be x number of GM's in the division for your percentage to count Sounds like the USPSA dilemma with having area matches count for percentage. How many actual active ICORE/USPSA GM'S are there, we are pretty lucky here on the north east coast having Olhasso and Lentz, but still doesn't even meet the 3 qty requirement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 It would really only count at the IRC for the time being but eventually trickle down ( hopefully) to the regionals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanc Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 It would really only count at the IRC for the time being but eventually trickle down ( hopefully) to the regionals. This fine as long as its done equitably. Unless I am failing at math,and I might be, there were several new GM's made at 2014 irc. This appears to have been done by winning m class but *not* having a 95% finish. Its not going to change, I get it, but this is IDPA like behavior that bumps people to classes above there actual competitive ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 There were several new GM's announced but it doesn't appear they were made. The match director has no say so in what happens. Also I'd you look at the classification policy there is nothing in the rules that covers a match bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 That's why the need for a rule..... It will include language much like USPSA. If you win your class at the IRC and finish with a higher percentage then you will be bumped. No well we like you so here you go stuff. We are working g to grow ICORE and make it as professional of an organization as we can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seanc Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 (edited) There were several new GM's announced but it doesn't appear they were made. The match director has no say so in what happens. Also I'd you look at the classification policy there is nothing in the rules that covers a match bump. I guess it is ultimately a little ado over not much. In any case, write a rule that is equitable. IDPA is not a model to follow as that system creates shooters that are out of there class. Edited September 27, 2014 by seanc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisC Posted September 27, 2014 Share Posted September 27, 2014 In a perfect world your classification should be determined by not only your performance on the classifiers but also match performance against the best in the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cd662 Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Having one singular classifier is a terrible idea. ICORE is really easy to get classified in, especially since you can set up your own classifiers and mail in the results. It's not like you have to go to a special match. There are classifiers you can set up in a shallow pit and that don't require extensive measurement. The freestyle element of ICORE is derived from IPSC, since there's still segments of the rulebook directly taken from IPSC. Even a lot of USPSA classifiers are just speed shoots. That's the purest type of shooting available. I don't see how "run and gun" classifiers would change anything. If you can't quickly draw and shoot a handful of targets at 10 yards, then what's the difference between running to a position and doing the same thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NV Guide Posted October 1, 2014 Share Posted October 1, 2014 Having classifiers with movement would allow for evaluation of the physical ability if some of our older/less mobile shooters. That being said the current system fits me very well as I place in matches at my classified level. I am against using a single classifier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now