First Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 So a competitor's percentage can go down if the competitor's best time on a stage is older than 2 years... and the clock starts ticking today (July 4th 2016)... is that correct? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photoracer Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 I think it means that as time goes on and the best scores get lower and lower the peak times will change and while your current rating won't change you will end up being farther from the next level unless you improve also. I actually think something changed in RFPO as they hit 7/4 because my score current percentage and my previous percentage show a reduction of 0.43% since they announced the peak times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZackJones Posted July 5, 2016 Author Share Posted July 5, 2016 (edited) There was a policy change yesterday. For initial classification all scores were counted. Going forward we will use 2 years. What that means is right now I am D in ISR. On Wednesday because I haven't shot it in 2 years my percentage will drop to 0.00 but my letter classification will remain a D. Edited July 5, 2016 by ZackJones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyliearms Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 Have you guys found that most of you stayed the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottlep Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 Have you guys found that most of you stayed the same? I am the same classifications, but now I am further away from being a Master than I was with the old system. Before the new system I was sitting at 76.96 I think. So I only needed to trim 1.96 seconds to get into M. With the new system I am sitting just below 80% in Open, so if I am figuring it out correctly I would have to lose around 8 seconds to get into M now. Biggest bummer is a shot a match this Sunday and shaved 2.68 seconds off my time, which would have gotten me my M in the old system. Oh well, I guess I just have alot more work to do to make that M. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyliearms Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 I had a little while to get to A. Same goes for after now... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
First Posted July 5, 2016 Share Posted July 5, 2016 Have you guys found that most of you stayed the same? I was about 9 seconds from A... now I'm less than 1 seconds. I think it's because I've always shot a production gun but was competing with everyone who was shooting open... now I'm just competing with other production guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZackJones Posted July 6, 2016 Author Share Posted July 6, 2016 I am all over the place I range from A down to D. My best is in RFRO and worst in ISR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCFL Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Zack - Just curious what the reasoning was behind using two calendar years as opposed to a rolling two year window. As I understand it, on December 31 of this year, classifications will be based on the previous two years of matches, (2015-16) but suddenly the next day (technically on the first Wednesday of the new year) it's only based on one year and a day or two (2016-17). Overall, I'm glad this finally happened and thanks to everyone who made it so, but it seems to me that a rolling two year window from the date of the calculation would make more sense than just dropping half of the scores overnight once we enter a new calendar year. Either way, as I said, I'm just glad it's finally here. I was just wondering how that decision came to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZackJones Posted July 6, 2016 Author Share Posted July 6, 2016 Zack - Just curious what the reasoning was behind using two calendar years as opposed to a rolling two year window. As I understand it, on December 31 of this year, classifications will be based on the previous two years of matches, (2015-16) but suddenly the next day (technically on the first Wednesday of the new year) it's only based on one year and a day or two (2016-17). Overall, I'm glad this finally happened and thanks to everyone who made it so, but it seems to me that a rolling two year window from the date of the calculation would make more sense than just dropping half of the scores overnight once we enter a new calendar year. Either way, as I said, I'm just glad it's finally here. I was just wondering how that decision came to be. You bring up a good point. Before going live with the system Mike and Troy approved a policy change to include all scores for initial classification. Perhaps we need to just stick with that. The idea behind it was to calculate the percentage based on recent stage times and not that one time way back when that the stars aligned and you shot the perfect set to strings . I'm discussing it with the developer now and will let you know what we figure out. Overall the feedback has been very positive about the new classification system. There's a few complains but not too many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyliearms Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Why did they take down the global rankings? Did I miss something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCFL Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Zack - Just curious what the reasoning was behind using two calendar years as opposed to a rolling two year window. As I understand it, on December 31 of this year, classifications will be based on the previous two years of matches, (2015-16) but suddenly the next day (technically on the first Wednesday of the new year) it's only based on one year and a day or two (2016-17). Overall, I'm glad this finally happened and thanks to everyone who made it so, but it seems to me that a rolling two year window from the date of the calculation would make more sense than just dropping half of the scores overnight once we enter a new calendar year. Either way, as I said, I'm just glad it's finally here. I was just wondering how that decision came to be. You bring up a good point. Before going live with the system Mike and Troy approved a policy change to include all scores for initial classification. Perhaps we need to just stick with that. The idea behind it was to calculate the percentage based on recent stage times and not that one time way back when that the stars aligned and you shot the perfect set to strings . I'm discussing it with the developer now and will let you know what we figure out. Overall the feedback has been very positive about the new classification system. There's a few complains but not too many. Keeping it recent makes sense, it just seems to me that rather than using calendar years, if it only looked at scores for two full years prior to the date the classification update is being run, the pool of scores being drawn from would stay consistent and reduce the possibility of shooters seeing potentially big swings in their percentage at the first of the year. I guess it seems the changes would be more gradual as older scores dropped off a week at a time instead of a whole year. Anyway, thanks again for your work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photoracer Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 If the July SC at PNTC was sanctioned I would have been at 94.1% in RFRO and would have made A in RFPO. Mainly due to my improvements in OL (which won't help me at Guthsville). Since I am so close to advance in both RFRO and RFPO, and pretty close to M in PCCO I think I am going to shoot the same two divisions in the July Classifier at Guthsville, RFRO and PCCO. Time to push on those 2 before somebody really good gets into the classes( ). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mreed911 Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 (edited) If the July SC at PNTC was sanctioned I would have been at 94.1% in RFRO and would have made A in RFPO. Mainly due to my improvements in OL (which won't help me at Guthsville). Since I am so close to advance in both RFRO and RFPO, and pretty close to M in PCCO I think I am going to shoot the same two divisions in the July Classifier at Guthsville, RFRO and PCCO. Time to push on those 2 before somebody really good gets into the classes( ).My most local "Steel challenge" match isn't sanctioned, either. I canf/won't pay a match fee for no score... Edited July 6, 2016 by mreed911 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimitz Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 If classifications are important to you it's time to either find a match that is sanctioned (easier said than done, I know) or convince your local MD to become an affiliated club. If they are already a USPSA club then nothing more then filling out a 1 page application is required because HQ takes the $50/yr USPSA affiliation fees & splits it in half for clubs that want to be affiliated in both. If not then it just costs $50/yr to be a SCSA affiliated club. The $1/shooter fee paid to HQ for sanctioned matches is nothing since say your club charges a $15 match fee then every new shooter who attends your match because its now sanctioned covers 15 shooters. If you used to have 30 shooters at a match & now you get just 32 because its sanctioned it costs you nothing extra to be sanctioned. Within the last 16 months my matches went from an average of 30 shooters to 65+. A good part of that is because we started offering sanctioned matches ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RCFL Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Within the last 16 months my matches went from an average of 30 shooters to 65+. A good part of that is because we started offering sanctioned matches ... And because you put on an excellent match every month. I make it to every one I can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photoracer Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Good advice. I convinced Peacemaker to go sanctioned because a lot of shooters won't shoot a non-sanctioned one. There are not a lot around within a couple of hours drive. I don't mind one that's not as I treat it as match practice. But until Scott and Dave got Guthsville going we had lost the only sanctioned match back around 2011. Sent from my XT1064 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Boudrie Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 (edited) The "calendar year" approach was used to keep things simple and easy to explain - no worry about scores "rolling off" as each new run was done. Zack did some more examination, and changed it to "current plus two previous calendar years". This was not a technical issue (it would be trivial to use a rolling window). We will be adding a "top 20 in division" as well as statistics on where you rank overall (within division) and in class (for a division). This will be a ranking but, unlike the old ranking system, will not be a "synthetic match" calculated using all 8 SC-### stages. Zack is the point person for policy issues, so please contact him with any suggestions for refinement of the system. And yes, we will working with the Practiscore developers to add an "auto import" of classifications into that program. Edited July 7, 2016 by Rob Boudrie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nimitz Posted July 7, 2016 Share Posted July 7, 2016 Within the last 16 months my matches went from an average of 30 shooters to 65+. A good part of that is because we started offering sanctioned matches ... And because you put on an excellent match every month. I make it to every one I can. That's what we like to here .... Happy customers ... Thx for the feedback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RaylanGivens Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 What are the "peak stage times" in the table? The 100% mark for each classifier? The reason I ask is because they have been such a closely guarded secret in USPSA, that it's hard to imagine that they are just listed out in the open... I've been a USPSA life member for several years... I checked my USPSA number on the Steel Challenge site and it's me... and my USPSA login works... am I good to go? I never paid to become a member of SCSA... We have run outlaw steel matches for many years at our range and never bothered with any Steel Challenge official affiliation... We are trying to "clean up" a few things due to some of the recent SCSA changes... Hence, we don't have much official Steel Challenge knowledge... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
photoracer Posted July 11, 2016 Share Posted July 11, 2016 (edited) Reason I have gone to Peacemaker to shoot SC even when it has not been sanctioned is because its like going to a big match (with less people). Its arrive, shoot, and drive. No setup and no takedown, all you need to do it decide who is going to run the squad timer, the Nook and painting the targets. Similar as what we called 'Arrive and Drive" in racing. Match fees includes setup, takedown, and brass pickup if you don't want yours. Edited July 11, 2016 by photoracer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPGMD Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 What are the "peak stage times" in the table? The 100% mark for each classifier? The reason I ask is because they have been such a closely guarded secret in USPSA, that it's hard to imagine that they are just listed out in the open... I've been a USPSA life member for several years... I checked my USPSA number on the Steel Challenge site and it's me... and my USPSA login works... am I good to go? I never paid to become a member of SCSA... We have run outlaw steel matches for many years at our range and never bothered with any Steel Challenge official affiliation... We are trying to "clean up" a few things due to some of the recent SCSA changes... Hence, we don't have much official Steel Challenge knowledge... I would imagine the difference between Steel Challenge peak times being out in the open, and the USPSA HHF being a secret has to do with the fact that you can't easily sandbag or grandbag in Steel Challenge. Your score is your classification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jkrispies Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) What are the "peak stage times" in the table? The 100% mark for each classifier? The reason I ask is because they have been such a closely guarded secret in USPSA, that it's hard to imagine that they are just listed out in the open... I've been a USPSA life member for several years... I checked my USPSA number on the Steel Challenge site and it's me... and my USPSA login works... am I good to go? I never paid to become a member of SCSA... We have run outlaw steel matches for many years at our range and never bothered with any Steel Challenge official affiliation... We are trying to "clean up" a few things due to some of the recent SCSA changes... Hence, we don't have much official Steel Challenge knowledge... I would imagine the difference between Steel Challenge peak times being out in the open, and the USPSA HHF being a secret has to do with the fact that you can't easily sandbag or grandbag in Steel Challenge. Your score is your classification. Excellent point. However, I also believe that the USPSA peak times (or, rather, Hit Factors) are "live" and change whenever any shooter bests the previous peak/HF, including scores registered via local monthly match reporting. This means that every peak time could potentially change every weekend. Getting that reported live is not impossible due to the Internet, but it could also be a real pain in the rear for USPSA. In the case of SC peaks, Steel Challenge has elected to "lock in" the peak times to be reviewed only after new times are clocked (and verified) at annual championships to see if they should be modified for all. Throw in the fact that SC has rounded the times to the nearest half second for simpler calculation, and the SC calculation is much simpler to grasp and work towards. As a rule, simpler is generally better. Zack, et al, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. Edited July 12, 2016 by jkrispies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PPGMD Posted July 12, 2016 Share Posted July 12, 2016 (edited) As far as I know USPSA HHFs aren't routinely updated. Edited July 12, 2016 by PPGMD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZackJones Posted July 12, 2016 Author Share Posted July 12, 2016 What are the "peak stage times" in the table? The 100% mark for each classifier? The reason I ask is because they have been such a closely guarded secret in USPSA, that it's hard to imagine that they are just listed out in the open... I've been a USPSA life member for several years... I checked my USPSA number on the Steel Challenge site and it's me... and my USPSA login works... am I good to go? I never paid to become a member of SCSA... We have run outlaw steel matches for many years at our range and never bothered with any Steel Challenge official affiliation... We are trying to "clean up" a few things due to some of the recent SCSA changes... Hence, we don't have much official Steel Challenge knowledge... Peak stage times or PST is the 100% mark. Your classification is based on how close your time is to that mark. Let's say the PST is 8 seconds and you currently shoot the stage in 10 seconds. To determine your classification for that one stage you divide the PST by your time and then multiply by 100 to get your percentage. So 8/10 = 0.80. 0.80 x 100 = 80.00 so you're shooting an A class time for that stage. We no longer have separate USPSA and steel challenge numbers. Your one number works for both sports. I'm glad to see you guys are cleaning things up and will hopefully affiliate. The more clubs we have that are affiliates the better. I would imagine the difference between Steel Challenge peak times being out in the open, and the USPSA HHF being a secret has to do with the fact that you can't easily sandbag or grandbag in Steel Challenge. Your score is your classification. Another reason they are out in the open is Phil published the first numbers in the BoD minutes back in 2014. We've revised some before going live so publishing them keeps everyone updated. Excellent point. However, I also believe that the USPSA peak times (or, rather, Hit Factors) are "live" and change whenever any shooter bests the previous peak/HF, including scores registered via local monthly match reporting. This means that every peak time could potentially change every weekend. Getting that reported live is not impossible due to the Internet, but it could also be a real pain in the rear for USPSA. In the case of SC peaks, Steel Challenge has elected to "lock in" the peak times to be reviewed only after new times are clocked (and verified) at annual championships to see if they should be modified for all. Throw in the fact that SC has rounded the times to the nearest half second for simpler calculation, and the SC calculation is much simpler to grasp and work towards. As a rule, simpler is generally better. Zack, et al, please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about any of this. I don't know the inner workings of the HHF but I do know they change over time. I shot SS just enough to get classified and over time my % in that divison has dropped which tells me the HHF has gotten higher. For steel we'll do a formal annual review after the completion of the WSSC but I will be doing informal reviews more frequently. I worked the FL State Championship this past weekend and have that match data that I can use for analysis. We had 9 shooters in PCCO, 105 in various center fire divisions, 34 in RFPO/RFPI, and 25 in RFRO/RFRI. The more data I have to review the better. 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