Reshooting classifiers

[Chills1994]

If anybody has a copy of the classifier manual or club manual (wherever it describes the classification system), could you take a look at how USPSA HQ describes "protecting the integrity of the classification system"?

I am wondering if they explicitly say that repeatedly shooting the classifier with the hopes of finally "hero'ing" it are forbidden or at the least frowned upon.

Or is it just something that is implied by how the manual is worded.

From what I can recall of that manual, it does say that reshoots are allowed for say gun jams or "brain farts".

What constitutes a legitimate "brain fart"?

Is that like shooting it the first time (for club match score) and figuring out that your score isn't going to bump you up into the next higher class, so you throw an extra round downrange, and get the associated penalties (so that classifier score gets kicked out) Then you go, "Oh my gosh, that extra shot was a brain fart, I deserve a re-shoot!"

(I knew a guy who purposely loaded up a dummy round in his mag for every classifier stage so he would have to tap, rack, bang to clear the "malfunction")

Where did our OP go, Dr. Mitch?

Edited November 23, 2015 by Chills1994

[sperman]

http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/Intro.pdf

What The System Measures
Many shooters use the classification system as if it were a huge postal match. Their goal is to obtain an Master or Grand Master classification, and they can get discouraged when they see their percentage changing from time to time.

Recently, some members have come to believe that the system was intended to indicate the highest performance level they could reach. Unfortunately, it is a simple matter for members to shoot a particular classifier over and over until they achieve as high a score a possible, then they send that score in to be used. This results in a classification that does not reflect reality, and in most cases, members who have done this cannot realistically compete at that higher level.

It is understood that anyone can do poorly on a classifier stage for various reasons, and this is why the USPSA board of directors has allowed members to reshoot a classifier stage for classification purposes. This permission should not be construed to mean that members can shoot classifier stages repeatedly until they have a score they like. The integrity of the classification system is at stake.

What the system was really designed and meant to show is how well a member can perform on a regular basis so that they can compete against shooters of their own relative skill level. It adds to the fun and excitement of practical shooting, the greatest shooting sport going!

Edited November 23, 2015 by sperman

[GrumpyOne]

http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/Intro.pdf

What The System Measures

Many shooters use the classification system as if it were a huge postal match. Their goal is to obtain an Master or Grand Master classification, and they can get discouraged when they see their percentage changing from time to time.

Recently, some members have come to believe that the system was intended to indicate the highest performance level they could reach. Unfortunately, it is a simple matter for members to shoot a particular classifier over and over until they achieve as high a score a possible, then they send that score in to be used. This results in a classification that does not reflect reality, and in most cases, members who have done this cannot realistically compete at that higher level.

It is understood that anyone can do poorly on a classifier stage for various reasons, and this is why the USPSA board of directors has allowed members to reshoot a classifier stage for classification purposes. This permission should not be construed to mean that members can shoot classifier stages repeatedly until they have a score they like. The integrity of the classification system is at stake.

What the system was really designed and meant to show is how well a member can perform on a regular basis so that they can compete against shooters of their own relative skill level. It adds to the fun and excitement of practical shooting, the greatest shooting sport going!

Thanks for posting this Scott!

[Chills1994]

http://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/Intro.pdf

What The System Measures

Many shooters use the classification system as if it were a huge postal match. Their goal is to obtain an Master or Grand Master classification, and they can get discouraged when they see their percentage changing from time to time.

Recently, some members have come to believe that the system was intended to indicate the highest performance level they could reach. Unfortunately, it is a simple matter for members to shoot a particular classifier over and over until they achieve as high a score a possible, then they send that score in to be used. This results in a classification that does not reflect reality, and in most cases, members who have done this cannot realistically compete at that higher level.

It is understood that anyone can do poorly on a classifier stage for various reasons, and this is why the USPSA board of directors has allowed members to reshoot a classifier stage for classification purposes. This permission should not be construed to mean that members can shoot classifier stages repeatedly until they have a score they like. The integrity of the classification system is at stake.

What the system was really designed and meant to show is how well a member can perform on a regular basis so that they can compete against shooters of their own relative skill level. It adds to the fun and excitement of practical shooting, the greatest shooting sport going!

Thank you sperman.

I guess what I am getting at is that like the rulebook there is language such as "should" or "shall"...especially since the longstanding rumor was that a lawyer(s?) supposedly wrote the USPSA rulebook, originally.

So, there is no direct language that says "match directors shall not allow competitors to reshoot the classifiers over and over again hoping for a higher score"???

As a side note, pre-internet forums there really wasn't a venue to out people who would do that.

Just to throw this out there as a suggestion, maybe all the classifier attempts should be recorded by the MD and submitted to HQ and then published on that person's classifier page???

[sperman]

To me, the coursebook is pretty clear. If someone wants to hide behind the semantics of a particular word or phrase, re-writing the rulebook isn't going to stop them. You can't force integrity on those who refuse it.

[Chills1994]

To me, the coursebook is pretty clear. If someone wants to hide behind the semantics of a particular word or phrase, re-writing the rulebook isn't going to stop them. You can't force integrity on those who refuse it.

Hence, my suggestion to have everything posted to their classifier page. Maybe they'll feel some semblance of shame when some anonymous dude from behind a keyboard takes a screenshot of their classifier page and posts it on that other forum for all the howler monkeys to mock them.

[MilkMyDuds]

I shot IDPA for a year and just came over to USPSA. This whole "classifier reshoot at will" thing puzzles me. Everyone say USPSA classification system is more accurate than IDPA. Maybe so, but IDPA does not allow you to reshoot any stages in a classifier. Sure you can go to classifier matches over and over again, but still most clubs host classifiers only once or twice a year. And once you are there, you get only 1 chance, even if your gun malfunctioned.

I believe the rule should explicitly say up to 2 times in the event of gun malfunction only. However, that may well be the last straw for someone who are hitting a wall trying to get to the next class for a long long time. Making the rule explicit may well lose some membership, while keeping the rule as is will not harm anyone except causing some confusions. From the longevity of USPSA POV it makes sense to keep the rule a bit implicit Unless this problem runs rampant at a large percentage, the folks who shoot only once are just being measured with a slightly tilted standards which is not a big deal.

[motosapiens]

To me, the coursebook is pretty clear. If someone wants to hide behind the semantics of a particular word or phrase, re-writing the rulebook isn't going to stop them. You can't force integrity on those who refuse it.

Hence, my suggestion to have everything posted to their classifier page. Maybe they'll feel some semblance of shame when some anonymous dude from behind a keyboard takes a screenshot of their classifier page and posts it on that other forum for all the howler monkeys to mock them.

you don't have to be anonymous to mock people.

[motosapiens]

In a major match, however, it's not fair for the sandbaggers (and yes, Virginia, they exist, and they'll often admit it, or at least show it by their very slow and deliberate Classifier performance at locals) to jump in and take a class win, because we DO get to compete against others in our class, within our Division.

If someone wants to claim the high road and say they don't care about class, I'd like to see that person decline an award for winning their class at a major.

i left, and someone else picked up my award for 'winning' my class at a major. I think it's a little embarassing. If other people don't think that, that's ok withi me. Some dudes dig fat chicks too.

[Chills1994]

About that whole tilted standards thing...

See? USPSA HQ never really revealed those standards. The high hit factors have never officially been published.

I could go on some more, but I am kinda off in the weeds as it is. That particular topic has been hashed, re-hased, and then hashed some more. Maybe with some new leadership at HQ coming soon there will be some more transparency to the classification system.

[Chills1994]

To me, the coursebook is pretty clear. If someone wants to hide behind the semantics of a particular word or phrase, re-writing the rulebook isn't going to stop them. You can't force integrity on those who refuse it.

Hence, my suggestion to have everything posted to their classifier page. Maybe they'll feel some semblance of shame when some anonymous dude from behind a keyboard takes a screenshot of their classifier page and posts it on that other forum for all the howler monkeys to mock them.

you don't have to be anonymous to mock people.

Hypothetically speaking, it makes it less awkward when say you get to some stage at nationals and the person who were mocking for being a paper M or GM is the CRO.

[motosapiens]

About that whole tilted standards thing...

See? USPSA HQ never really revealed those standards. The high hit factors have never officially been published.

but everyone who doesn't suck at math (or the internet) knows them. the part we don't know is how those HHF's were set in many cases.

[Chills1994]

What would be nice is if HQ would post the names (and the rest of the pertinents) of the highest hit factors, by division, for each of the classifiers, actually shot.

But I am off in the weeds again....

[MilkMyDuds]

I assumed the HHFs are calculated based on the distribution curve of past classifier results among the members. If not, then there is little risk of tilted standards due to the unlimited reshoots by some people, unless HQ wants to keep the class distribution under a hard curve.

[sperman]

I assumed the HHFs are calculated based on the distribution curve of past classifier results among the members. If not, then there is little risk of tilted standards due to the unlimited reshoots by some people, unless HQ wants to keep the class distribution under a hard curve.

Your assumption would be wrong.

It's one guy with a spreadsheet making an educated guess. I don't think they are terribly far off, but there are several classifiers where there should be absolutely no difference between limited and L10, but they are. At this point, (and I hate to say it) I'm with Chills. if the answer is "We pulled random numbers out of a hat" so be it. Just tell us. The secrecy is worse than the truth, I'm sure.

[motosapiens]

I assumed the HHFs are calculated based on the distribution curve of past classifier results among the members. If not, then there is little risk of tilted standards due to the unlimited reshoots by some people, unless HQ wants to keep the class distribution under a hard curve.

Your assumption would be wrong.

It's one guy with a spreadsheet making an educated guess. I don't think they are terribly far off, but there are several classifiers where there should be absolutely no difference between limited and L10, but they are. At this point, (and I hate to say it) I'm with Chills. if the answer is "We pulled random numbers out of a hat" so be it. Just tell us. The secrecy is worse than the truth, I'm sure.

many of the classfiers have HHF's that were set by the division winner at nationals, so if grauffel shot conservatively that year, and Nils went balls out, it could mean that the production HHF is easier than it otta be compared to limited. I only researched production and limited scores, but I would not be surprised if the L10 scores for those classifiers were obtained in the same way.

[MilkMyDuds]

I guess the key question to the USPSA classification system is whether shooters are competing with other shooters, e.g. a hard distribution curve, or shooters are competing with just some numbers that were pulled out of somewhere.

[motosapiens]

I guess the key question to the USPSA classification system is whether shooters are competing with other shooters, e.g. a hard distribution curve, or shooters are competing with just some numbers that were pulled out of somewhere.

since the hhf's don't seem to change (with the exception of a few getting an initial adjustment after a few months), I would say the classifications are based on numbers, but shooters are still competing with each other by comparing those numbers).

[FTDMFR]

I shot IDPA for a year and just came over to USPSA. This whole "classifier reshoot at will" thing puzzles me. Everyone say USPSA classification system is more accurate than IDPA. Maybe so, but IDPA does not allow you to reshoot any stages in a classifier. Sure you can go to classifier matches over and over again, but still most clubs host classifiers only once or twice a year. And once you are there, you get only 1 chance, even if your gun malfunctioned.

Actually, the rulebook allows you to reshoot one stage:

9.8.3 The Classifier must be shot as a single ninety (90) round match, shot all in one day to the best of one’s ability. It is permissible to allow reshoots of a whole stage due to equipment problems and/or shooter mental errors for the purpose of accurate Classification as long as the reshoot occurs on the same day as the rest of the Classifier. However, no reshoots of individual strings of fire are permitted. If the Classifier is part of a scored match with other IDPA stages or the shooter is trying to attain a six firearm award, no reshoots are permitted.

But your point still stands. It's a lot harder to grandbag with one 90-round classifier vs. six 12-round classifiers.

Edited November 24, 2015 by FTDMFR

[sperman]

I assumed the HHFs are calculated based on the distribution curve of past classifier results among the members. If not, then there is little risk of tilted standards due to the unlimited reshoots by some people, unless HQ wants to keep the class distribution under a hard curve.

Your assumption would be wrong.

It's one guy with a spreadsheet making an educated guess. I don't think they are terribly far off, but there are several classifiers where there should be absolutely no difference between limited and L10, but they are. At this point, (and I hate to say it) I'm with Chills. if the answer is "We pulled random numbers out of a hat" so be it. Just tell us. The secrecy is worse than the truth, I'm sure.

many of the classfiers have HHF's that were set by the division winner at nationals, so if grauffel shot conservatively that year, and Nils went balls out, it could mean that the production HHF is easier than it otta be compared to limited. I only researched production and limited scores, but I would not be surprised if the L10 scores for those classifiers were obtained in the same way.

If you're referring to the 13 series classifiers, that's a whole can of worms in itself. There was plenty of video evidence of the COF being different at at least one of the nationals compared to the stage diagram. I'm sure there are threads on it here on the forum.

I guess the key question to the USPSA classification system is whether shooters are competing with other shooters, e.g. a hard distribution curve, or shooters are competing with just some numbers that were pulled out of somewhere.

since the hhf's don't seem to change (with the exception of a few getting an initial adjustment after a few months), I would say the classifications are based on numbers, but shooters are still competing with each other by comparing those numbers).

It is my understanding that the hhf's are adjusted when the scores in the spreadsheet show it needs changing.

[motosapiens]

It is my understanding that the hhf's are adjusted when the scores in the spreadsheet show it needs changing.

that made me lol out loud with vagueness and rumorage.

So in other words..... no one really knows.

I personally don't put a lot of stock in comparing videos to stage diagrams. The stage(s) I recall shooting at 2013 nats that became classifiers were pretty much the same as I've seen since, but I only shot 1 nationals match.

Edited November 25, 2015 by motosapiens

[Chills1994]

Which brings me back to my point where if USPSA HQ had a page on its website showing Joe Sixpack, A6969, shot in open division a 3.5 second El Prez clean for a 17.14 hit factor at the Frog Holler gun club on Nov 21, 2015.

Then we would all know it was do-able, and not just some numbers pulled out of the air.

[Chills1994]

It is my understanding that the hhf's are adjusted when the scores in the spreadsheet show it needs changing.

that made me lol out loud with vagueness and rumorage.

So in other words..... no one really knows.

I personally don't put a lot of stock in comparing videos to stage diagrams. The stage(s) I recall shooting at 2013 nats that became classifiers were pretty much the same as I've seen since, but I only shot 1 nationals match.

Oh...I imagine there is at least one person who knows how it is done, but he is always eye searingly absent from these threads.

And he has turned the "keys" over to a few other people (non-employees of USPSA) to grant them access to the classifier datase (for whatever reasons). I get the feeling they have seen the sausage being made, but they aren't exactly forthcoming with that information either.

Edited November 25, 2015 by Chills1994

[sperman]

This was discussed at the BOD meeting I attended. That was 2 years ago, so hopefully the statute of limitations has run out on anything I'm about to divulge. I also have to preface this by saying my memory isn't great. I hope one of the other attendees will correct me if I'm wrong.

As i recall, Amidon was the only one on the board who knew how the process worked. (This includes members of the "classification committee" who had never been consulted on HHF or new classifiers.) Roger Maier keeps up with all the high hit factors. He reviews the data periodically and makes adjustments when he feels they are warranted. I didn't get the impression there was any formula, or bell curve, just his gut feel of how well the scores were falling within the norms.

I think one of the main reasons at this point that they can't tell us where the HHF came from is because they don't know. Even if they were originally set by shooter X at Area Y, that information wasn't kept, and could easily have been adjusted since. I don't necessarily think this is a bad system, but I do wish there were more transparency.

Edited November 25, 2015 by sperman

[MilkMyDuds]

Thanks for the insight

As long as the classifier database is not being constantly adjusted to place shooters into a bell curve based on the times from all recent classifier submissions, I am fine with others reshooting as many times as they like, because we are competing with just some numbers, not other shooters in these classifiers