USPSA SCORING

[RJH]

The B zone is a remnant of days gone by and was used for tie breakers, I think more in the old days of stopwatches.

[Onepocket]

I forgot about the days before timers. I wonder if matches where mostly PAR times and Virgina count. How many of you would want a guy running you on a stop watch.

[Rob Tompkins]

I like the general method of scoring with hit factors, stage points, etc.

However, I do think the penelity structure semi rewards (or fails to sufficently punish) speed induced errors like Mikes and NS. More than a few times I've seen shooters sprint through a large stage hardley even point shooting with many, many "D" hits and even a Mike or NS and still come out with a top or near top HF.

Diligentia, Vis, & Celeritas: accuracy, power, and speed. Speed is king but it is what it its and I still like it.

Edit: added underlined.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Rob Tompkins

[Nimitz]

This is in theory only. 9x45 I'm not worried just

Curious on people's thoughts on the subject. Punish people for missing more, mikes -30. Make

No shoots count more also. So you can shoot as fast as you want, missing will just be more painful.

you can do this now .....

ask Bob V. how much pain a current miss causes .......

[Onepocket]

I'm well aware of hitting noshoots and mikes myself. Don't worry guys I'm not going to email or call USPSA headquarters like the WO guys to get things changed. Anyone on here old enough to tell us about scoring in the old days before electronic timers?

[RJH]

I am not old enough but, I bet there was a lot of boom..........wait till you know the timer is stopped, and boom to make up that mike

[Strick]

The real issue I have with the scoring system is my performance is not the only thing that dictates my score. My score is based on how another shooter shot a stage, better or worse. I would rather have my shooting performance only result in my score since that is what a system should be trying to judge.

[RJH]

Strick, the hit factor is your performance/score, no one but you determine it. Match points and percentages, that is another story.

[Corey]

Isnt any competition based on how you do vs someone else? Even if its just you on the range practicing, how do you know you are improving? By doing better than yourself on a certain drill. Its always you vs them, even if the "them" is your previous self. There is no other way to know what your performance is...

Your score is based on how you shoot it. YOUR points divided by YOUR time equals YOUR hit factor. That's your score. Now what place you finish is based on how others did as well.

Edit: RJH, great minds think alike lol

[PatJones]

The real issue I have with the scoring system is my performance is not the only thing that dictates my score. My score is based on how another shooter shot a stage, better or worse. I would rather have my shooting performance only result in my score since that is what a system should be trying to judge.

You're proposing getting rid of the stage point system?

With stage points the lager stages are a larger percentage of your score. Do you want a 6 shot speed stage to be weighted the same in the match results as a 32 round field stage? That magnifies shooter errors in the smaller stages.

[Strick]

Isnt any competition based on how you do vs someone else? Even if its just you on the range practicing, how do you know you are improving? By doing better than yourself on a certain drill. Its always you vs them, even if the "them" is your previous self. There is no other way to know what your performance is...

Your score is based on how you shoot it. YOUR points divided by YOUR time equals YOUR hit factor. That's your score. Now what place you finish is based on how others did as well.

Edit: RJH, great minds think alike lol

Strick, the hit factor is your performance/score, no one but you determine it. Match points and percentages, that is another story.

My HF is just how I shot the stage, my actual score for placement is based on how other people shot the stage. Your HF isn't the ultimate number that determines placement, stage points are.

[Strick]

The real issue I have with the scoring system is my performance is not the only thing that dictates my score. My score is based on how another shooter shot a stage, better or worse. I would rather have my shooting performance only result in my score since that is what a system should be trying to judge.

You're proposing getting rid of the stage point system?

With stage points the lager stages are a larger percentage of your score. Do you want a 6 shot speed stage to be weighted the same in the match results as a 32 round field stage? That magnifies shooter errors in the smaller stages.

I do agree with the idea that stages needed to weighted, I am just not a huge fan of the way it is done now. A while back ideas were tossed around but it never gained real traction.

[Corey]

Your HF determines your place and therefore stage points on that stage. But yes, its based on how your HF compares to others. I don't know how you can compete with someone else and NOT compare performances like you want though?

[Strick]

Your HF determines your place and therefore stage points on that stage. But yes, its based on how your HF compares to others. I don't know how you can compete with someone else and NOT compare performances like you want though?

Your HF determines your place and therefore stage points on that stage. But yes, its based on how your HF compares to others. I don't know how you can compete with someone else and NOT compare performances like you want though?

So you agree that even though my HF determines where I rank for that stage my actual score used to determine a match winner is based on how well I did on a particular stage compared to that stage winner. So my score is not based on just my performance, it is based on others performance as well. Basing my score on someones shooting is not the same as comparing my overall match performance to other shooters.

Take Prod nationals, as close as it was the result could have easily changed based on how well a shooter outside the top 10 shot a particular stage. Would have had nothing to do with Ben's or Bob's performance.

IDPA kinda got the scoring right, atleast how I shot is my score, the only thing that can change where I finish is my own shooting.

[Corey]

Stage score is your doing. Match score is in relation to everyone else, yes. But that's the point of competition...do better than everyone else or at least see how you compare to everyone else.

I've never shot IDPA so im not 100% sure how their scoring works ( I know its time plus penalties for outside the circle, etc) but at the end of the match, its still your score vs their score...so match performance, meaning whether you finished 1st 3rd or 25th, still depends on other people.

I get what you are trying to say but in any sort of a competitive sport, the resulting outcome is based on who outperformed who. And that can only be done by comparing scores.

And yes, another shooter outside the top 10 could have (and if we look long enough and do enough math probably did) effect the outcome you could also say that if Bob had shot 1 or 2 less Cs or Ds he could have won. Or if he would have won a particular stage instead of finishing 2nd on it, he could have won. Still comes back to you and your score. Shoot the best you can and see where you fall. If its not on top, do better next time.

[Nimitz]

I'm well aware of hitting noshoots and mikes myself. Don't worry guys I'm not going to email or call USPSA headquarters like the WO guys to get things changed. Anyone on here old enough to tell us about scoring in the old days before electronic timers?

they used stop watches ....

[AngryFive0]

Trust me Pat I sure don't want time plus scoring system. That's just plan sucks. Angry five-o your not a cop anymore so why are you still angry. I agree the better shooter will still come out ahead most of the time. I like to experiment at some matches and see if I shoot crazy fast dropping a ton of points how it turns out. I have learned a lot doing this! So would the highest hit factor for the match winning be the same as time plus scoring to y'all.

[AngryFive0]

Not angry anymore just haven't changed online profiles.

[Onepocket]

Angryfive O. I was just having fun. We need to practice together sometime. . See if this helps 0.665

[Onepocket]

Back to the scoring: I agree with Strick but I don't think there is a better way. Never was that good at math. Maybe match HF would be a better representation of the best shooter????

[Nik Habicht]

Your HF determines your place and therefore stage points on that stage. But yes, its based on how your HF compares to others. I don't know how you can compete with someone else and NOT compare performances like you want though?

Your HF determines your place and therefore stage points on that stage. But yes, its based on how your HF compares to others. I don't know how you can compete with someone else and NOT compare performances like you want though?

So you agree that even though my HF determines where I rank for that stage my actual score used to determine a match winner is based on how well I did on a particular stage compared to that stage winner. So my score is not based on just my performance, it is based on others performance as well. Basing my score on someones shooting is not the same as comparing my overall match performance to other shooters.

Take Prod nationals, as close as it was the result could have easily changed based on how well a shooter outside the top 10 shot a particular stage. Would have had nothing to do with Ben's or Bob's performance.

IDPA kinda got the scoring right, atleast how I shot is my score, the only thing that can change where I finish is my own shooting.

I think there might be a flaw in your logic.....

You and I shoot an IDPA match. You shoot first on every stage in the match, and complete the entire match before I even roll in and shoot the following day. Let's say ten stages and you score ten seconds on each for a 100 seconds total time, including all points down.

I come along the next morning and shoot every stage in 9 seconds -- haven't I just pushed you down to second on every stage, and in the whole match?

In USPSA the comparison's the same, only in reverse. If my hit factor of 10 points per second beats everyone else, I get all the available stage points. If you score a hit factor of 9 points per second, you get 90% of my score -- my score didn't affect you in any different way, than it would have in IDPA. I simply shot faster and better in both examples -- not likely to happen in real life....

[Nik Habicht]

Back to the scoring: I agree with Strick but I don't think there is a better way. Never was that good at math. Maybe match HF would be a better representation of the best shooter????

In match hit factor scoring -- looking only at Stoeger and Vogel, Vogel wins. In IDPA scoring, assuming I remember the numbers correctly Ben beats Bob by ~ 2 seconds. I calculated by taking their raw time, adding a 1/2 second for every Bravo or Charlie, 1.5 seconds for a Delta, and 2.5 for a Mike -- I think that's how it used to go. (I know -- no B hits in IDPA, but we're shooting USPSA, and I'm not about to redraw the targets....)

[JayWord]

I'm well aware of hitting noshoots and mikes myself. Don't worry guys I'm not going to email or call USPSA headquarters like the WO guys to get things changed. Anyone on here old enough to tell us about scoring in the old days before electronic timers?

they used stop watches ....

The way we did it was the use of two stopwatches and a whistle. You started on the whistle and stopped when you hit the Stop Plate. I started just as Ron Bailey was bringing out the Pro Timer 2 and we used to back up the timer with a stop watch. If the clubs timer failed or you did not have one you did it with the watch and stop plate. That is why older timer have a stop plate jack so it can be attached to a switch on a stop plate.

The stop plate had to be shot last. Any hits after hitting the stop plate did not count.

The 1986 edition still had the stop watch procedure in the rulebook.

Jay

[d_striker]

I'm well aware of hitting noshoots and mikes myself. Don't worry guys I'm not going to email or call USPSA headquarters like the WO guys to get things changed. Anyone on here old enough to tell us about scoring in the old days before electronic timers?

they used stop watches ....

The way we did it was the use of two stopwatches and a whistle. You started on the whistle and stopped when you hit the Stop Plate. I started just as Ron Bailey was bringing out the Pro Timer 2 and we used to back up the timer with a stop watch. If the clubs timer failed or you did not have one you did it with the watch and stop plate. That is why older timer have a stop plate jack so it can be attached to a switch on a stop plate.

The stop plate had to be shot last. Any hits after hitting the stop plate did not count.

The 1986 edition still had the stop watch procedure in the rulebook.

Jay

I had no idea. Using stopwatches sounds horrible.

Edited August 13, 2015 by d_striker

[ron169]

Back to the scoring: I agree with Strick but I don't think there is a better way. Never was that good at math. Maybe match HF would be a better representation of the best shooter????

In match hit factor scoring -- looking only at Stoeger and Vogel, Vogel wins. In IDPA scoring, assuming I remember the numbers correctly Ben beats Bob by ~ 2 seconds. I calculated by taking their raw time, adding a 1/2 second for every Bravo or Charlie, 1.5 seconds for a Delta, and 2.5 for a Mike -- I think that's how it used to go. (I know -- no B hits in IDPA, but we're shooting USPSA, and I'm not about to redraw the targets....)

The problem with that is, had Ben known they were using idpa scoring, his plan would have been adjusted. Look at the area 3 results. About the cleanest match result I've ever seen for point percentages

Edited August 13, 2015 by ron169