USPSA Nationals Shooting Challenge Difficulty Poll

[MikeBurgess]

6 hours ago, rowdyb said:

I kind of like the analogy that the stages should be like race tracks. They can take street cars, F1 cars, motorcycles, novices and world champions. But they don't have things in them just for the hell of it to make the racing harder, no one would keep racing a track of 12 chicanes in a row. The difficulty is in being perfect at speed compared to others. Kinda like shooting in a way.

I really like this analogy, 

[MikeRush]

2 hours ago, motosapiens said:

 

Just to play the devil's advocate, I'm not sure that just because a stage had an effect on the final results that means it's a bad stage or too hard or whatever. It's kind of a judgement call as to whether there is too much effect from a single stage.

I don't think any reasonable person would say Nils' victory was 'artificial', or that he didn't earn it by outshooting everyone else (as usual). It looks from the results you posted that perhaps Bob and Jacob need a little more practice on certain skills that the other 8 guys in the top 10 were more consistent at.

To OP regarding "artificial": That Nils guy must have been really lucky at the 2013 Limited and L10 nationals, the 2014 Limited nationals and World Shoot, the 2015 Limited 10 Nationals, and the 2016 Limited nationals. That, or each of those matches had a crappy stage that always works in his favor. 2015 Production Nats must have had good stages because Bob placed ahead of Nils.

Looking at Stage 9, average stage percentage by class, rounded:

GM 47%

M 32%

A 20%

B 18%

C 13%

D 1%

OP, I would base your argument there, rather than getting into individual shooters.

I agree that stages shouldn't be so hard that the average GM finish is under 50%. I disagree with "shooter A shot 1 penalty and shooter B shot 3 on this stage. Shooter A won the match so its a bad stage".

To paraphrase a great Baja racer, "Any dummy can go out there and mash the *thumb rest [generic]*. The trick is knowing when to lift."

 

ETA: didn't included the quoted quote so added text for clarity. Also, that should be the part of a car you press down for loud noises, not thumb rest generic.

Edited October 27, 2016 by MikeRush

[Jake Di Vita]

Nationals stages should include extremely difficult shooting tests. In my mind, the chief reason we have a nationals is to find the best shooters in the country. This is the one match per year that I really don't care if any shooters at all are upset because they find it too challenging. About the only way I'll agree that a stage at nationals is too difficult is if 100% of the competitors zero it. I think the fact that we are talking about one really hard stage being too much for a national championship is laughable.

[Strick]

33 minutes ago, Jake Di Vita said:

Nationals stages should include extremely difficult shooting tests. In my mind, the chief reason we have a nationals is to find the best shooters in the country. This is the one match per year that I really don't care if any shooters at all are upset because they find it too challenging. About the only way I'll agree that a stage at nationals is too difficult is if 100% of the competitors zero it. I think the fact that we are talking about one really hard stage being too much for a national championship is laughable.

If they are all competing on the same stages what does the stage difficulty have to do with it?  We can still find out who is the best by having easy stages since they all still have to perform over the entire match.  The hard is being on your game every shot, every position, every stage, every day, for the entire match.  It shouldn't be getting some lucky hits on a "gotcha" stage.

Also I think the point Charlie is trying to make is that shooting  swingers out to 25+ yards with a no shoot on it, only offering the bare minimum scoring zone, is not really a test (general case maybe not the case at this nationals).  Something like that is a crap shoot and luck when it comes to getting hits.  There are plenty of ways to test shooters and make it a challenge without being so creative that the only "hard" is impossible shots made by basic luck in most cases.

[CHA-LEE]

Ok, so if Stage 9 was "Just fine" from a difficulty standpoint, then why did the match staff decide to change it to make it easier for the open match? The stage was the same difficulty in the match book for both the Limited and Open matches, so why change it? 

[bret]

25 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

Ok, so if Stage 9 was "Just fine" from a difficulty standpoint, then why did the match staff decide to change it to make it easier for the open match? The stage was the same difficulty in the match book for both the Limited and Open matches, so why change it? 

I am not sure, 2 stages were removed because of the wind and rain, the L10/Open match had easier stages, I think in part due to the Hurricane and wanting to get people through the much in 2 days, they closed the range on Friday due to Hurricane Matthew.

IMO the Zebra should have been left on stage 9.

Had it been exactly the same stage for Limited and Open, scores could have been compared between the people that shot both.

Stage 9 was a good stage, just took a different strategy, and it had a test of SHO and WHO.

Nationals is supposed to be a test to find out who the best shooter is, why make it easy?

you are the only one I heard complaining about the stage.

[Jake Di Vita]

39 minutes ago, Strick said:

If they are all competing on the same stages what does the stage difficulty have to do with it?  We can still find out who is the best by having easy stages since they all still have to perform over the entire match.  The hard is being on your game every shot, every position, every stage, every day, for the entire match.  It shouldn't be getting some lucky hits on a "gotcha" stage.

Also I think the point Charlie is trying to make is that shooting  swingers out to 25+ yards with a no shoot on it, only offering the bare minimum scoring zone, is not really a test (general case maybe not the case at this nationals).  Something like that is a crap shoot and luck when it comes to getting hits.  There are plenty of ways to test shooters and make it a challenge without being so creative that the only "hard" is impossible shots made by basic luck in most cases.

Nationals to me is about finding the best shooters in the country. There are a few important fundamental aspects this match needs to have. The most important is that it is as close to the same test for everyone as can be. Another aspect is nationals needs to be a valid shooting test to be able to find the best shooters which means it needs to test as many aspects of USPSA as possible. If we use your example of having all easy stages, then the only thing we find the best at is people shooting easy stages. Don't you think it is important for a nationals to expose weaknesses? That doesn't happen with all easy stages.

Lucky hits on a "gotcha" stage? I remember a nationals many years ago with a 4 target spinner at about 15 yards that actually looked like an airplane prop when it was activated. You had no idea what you were shooting at. That's a "gotcha" to me and should not be at a nationals. Stage 9 at limited nationals was just a very difficult shooting challenge. Execution was rewarded and inability to execute was harshly punished, which I think is totally fair for a stage at the nationals. I don't subscribe to the notion that the people who succeeded on this stage did it out of luck and it's just a crap shoot. If you're able to pull it off when it matters, you earned the points you gain. If you can't pull it off, better luck next time you have a year to practice.

38 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

Ok, so if Stage 9 was "Just fine" from a difficulty standpoint, then why did the match staff decide to change it to make it easier for the open match? The stage was the same difficulty in the match book for both the Limited and Open matches, so why change it? 

I think they should have left it the same.

Edited October 27, 2016 by Jake Di Vita

[Strick]

4 minutes ago, Jake Di Vita said:

 

Lucky hits on a "gotcha" stage? I remember a nationals many years ago with a 4 target spinner at about 15 yards that actually looked like an airplane prop when it was activated. You had no idea what you were shooting at. That's a "gotcha" to me and should not be at a nationals. Stage 9 at limited nationals was just a very difficult shooting challenge. Execution was rewarded and inability to execute was harshly punished, which I think is totally fair for a stage at the nationals. I don't subscribe to the notion that the people who succeeded on this stage did it out of luck and it's just a crap shoot. If you're able to pull it off when it matters, you earned the points you gain.

I think they should have left it the same.

I am not specifically talking about stage 9 at LTD Nats.....I don't even know what the stage was, I am talking in general terms.  However, rewarded or "harshly" punished.....that is the kinda the issue.  If you execute properly you are not "superduper" rewarded.  On top of that if the stage can only be executed by a slim percentage of shooters at a match then it falls more into the luck category.

[bret]

2 minutes ago, Strick said:

I am not specifically talking about stage 9 at LTD Nats.....I don't even know what the stage was, I am talking in general terms.  However, rewarded or "harshly" punished.....that is the kinda the issue.  If you execute properly you are not "superduper" rewarded.  On top of that if the stage can only be executed by a slim percentage of shooters at a match then it falls more into the luck category.

stage 9 had 6 static targets.

it was not luck, it was skill that determined the winner of the stage.

[CHA-LEE]

11 minutes ago, bret said:

I am not sure, 2 stages were removed because of the wind and rain, the L10/Open match had easier stages, I think in part due to the Hurricane and wanting to get people through the much in 2 days, they closed the range on Friday due to Hurricane Matthew.

IMO the Zebra should have been left on stage 9.

Had it been exactly the same stage for Limited and Open, scores could have been compared between the people that shot both.

Stage 9 was a good stage, just took a different strategy, and it had a test of SHO and WHO.

Nationals is supposed to be a test to find out who the best shooter is, why make it easy?

you are the only one I heard complaining about the stage.

Just because I am the only one from the super squad to call Stage 9 bullshit on the forum does not make me the "Only" one who thought the stage was retarded. During the match I sucked it up and took it on the chin like everyone else as there is nothing I can do about it once the match starts. I heard negative comments about that stage from many of my fellow squad mates and other top shooters, without even asking them about it directly. I seen several of them give the match staff a "WTF!!!" about the stage during the match. So unfortunately for you, I am not the only one who thought that the stage was over the top in shooting difficulty.

Just because you like getting your nuts crushed in a vise for the only reason of "THE NATIONALS HAS TO BE HARD" doesn't make it the right thing to do for everyone.  

[motosapiens]

4 minutes ago, bret said:

stage 9 had 6 static targets.

it was not luck, it was skill that determined the winner of the stage.

if you are good at math then you understand that luck always factors at least a little into every stage.

from a math standpoint, it makes sense to me to have stages where the distribution of scores looks fairly reasonable. If the average GM shot only 50% of the winner, that seems pretty unusual. It would cause a rational person to think that perhaps most gms don't train enough on SHO and WHO, or perhaps the winner got lucky, or perhaps there was some other oddity going on.

[Jake Di Vita]

2 minutes ago, Strick said:

I am not specifically talking about stage 9 at LTD Nats.....I don't even know what the stage was, I am talking in general terms.  However, rewarded or "harshly" punished.....that is the kinda the issue.  If you execute properly you are not "superduper" rewarded.  On top of that if the stage can only be executed by a slim percentage of shooters at a match then it falls more into the luck category.

We just have different match philosophies. Say a shooter has 6 misses on a hard stage and another shooter cleans the same hard stage with times pretty close to each other. The first shooter made 6 poor shots, he should be harshly penalized compared to the shooter that made none. There's nothing "superduper rewarded" about it. If you do way better on a stage than someone else you should get way more points than them.

I don't believe luck plays much of a factor. If I bone a hard stage I don't complain about being unlucky. I go home and practice.

[MikeRush]

4 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

You are delusional if you believe that Stage 9 didn't artificially impact the overall match results in a negative way. 

I was following you up to this point. Call me delusional then. You mean the guy who shot a very difficult stage better than his rival beat him in the overall? Sounds artificial to me.

I agree with you in theory that we don't need virginia count, strong hand only 25 yard partials to determine who the best practical shooter is. I think it is dumb, personally. Where I disagree is that dumb=unfair. Maybe that stage didn't belong there, but it still was fair. The GMs on average finished above the Ms, who finished above the As. Its not like Bobby B class snuck up and stole the stage win because he happened to land 2 on a 50 yard head box only virginia count swinger that activates randomly based on planetary alignment. 

TLDR version:

Hard stages aren't unfair or artificial because they are hard. They might be dumb, but they aren't inherently unfair.

[ATLDave]

1 minute ago, MikeRush said:

Its not like Bobby B class snuck up and stole the stage win because he happened to land 2 on a 50 yard head box only virginia count swinger that activates randomly based on planetary alignment. 

No, Bobby B. Class merely managed to get 7th.  

[CHA-LEE]

The way I see it, the nationals should be the example of what I strive my local matches to be. I should be able to poach any stage from the nationals and use it at a local club match and have it be a fun and fair shooting challenge for all skill levels. If I setup Stage 9 at any of the local matches around me it would yield the same horrible results if not worse. This is a standards stage that is very much like a classifier. Show me any active classifier that would yield the same horrid results across all classifications. I will save you some time, it does not exist. So what is Stage 9 really testing? Its testing luck, not skill. 

[Jake Di Vita]

22 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

The way I see it, the nationals should be the example of what I strive my local matches to be. I should be able to poach any stage from the nationals and use it at a local club match and have it be a fun and fair shooting challenge for all skill levels. If I setup Stage 9 at any of the local matches around me it would yield the same horrible results if not worse. This is a standards stage that is very much like a classifier. Show me any active classifier that would yield the same horrid results across all classifications. I will save you some time, it does not exist. So what is Stage 9 really testing? Its testing luck, not skill. 

If that is how you see nationals then you are right. I don't agree with that interpretation of what nationals should be though. I'm good with that being the purpose of area matches but not nationals.

I completely disagree that stage 9 did not test skill. It tested exactly what it looks like it tested. How good are you at shooting hard shots with one hand? Turns out a bunch of people aren't real good at it although I suspect there were a lot of freestyle misses shot on that stage as well. 

 

Edited October 27, 2016 by Jake Di Vita

[bret]

4 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

The way I see it, the nationals should be the example of what I strive my local matches to be. I should be able to poach any stage from the nationals and use it at a local club match and have it be a fun and fair shooting challenge for all skill levels. If I setup Stage 9 at any of the local matches around me it would yield the same horrible results if not worse. This is a standards stage that is very much like a classifier. Show me any active classifier that would yield the same horrid results across all classifications. I will save you some time, it does not exist. So what is Stage 9 really testing? Its testing luck, not skill. 

 

4 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

The way I see it, the nationals should be the example of what I strive my local matches to be. I should be able to poach any stage from the nationals and use it at a local club match and have it be a fun and fair shooting challenge for all skill levels. If I setup Stage 9 at any of the local matches around me it would yield the same horrible results if not worse. This is a standards stage that is very much like a classifier. Show me any active classifier that would yield the same horrid results across all classifications. I will save you some time, it does not exist. So what is Stage 9 really testing? Its testing luck, not skill. 

it is a test of skill, 6 static targets shot from 2 shooting area's, with 3 different holds on the gun.

if it was an airplane spinner as mentioned or a swinger at 25 yards with no shoots on it, then I might buy your argument it is luck.

I think these types of stages are good at local matches so it gets people to practice SHO and WHO.

not all stages should be easy so they can be blazed away at, especially at Nationals.

[MikeRush]

11 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

No, Bobby B. Class merely managed to get 7th.  

You are right. You found the smoking gun. A B class guy shoots the stage slow and clean, for a maximum of 66% of the HHF. Sounds suspicious to me. Especially since he place ahead of very good shooters who shot the stage 50% faster with lots of penalties.

[Jake Di Vita]

Just now, MikeRush said:

You are right. You found the smoking gun. A B class guy shoots the stage slow and clean, for a maximum of 66% of the HHF. Sounds suspicious to me. Especially since he place ahead of very good shooters who shot the stage 50% faster with lots of penalties.

What he said. B class dude executed and was rewarded for it. Percentage of stage within his class. Well done to him.

[PPGMD]

54 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

The way I see it, the nationals should be the example of what I strive my local matches to be. I should be able to poach any stage from the nationals and use it at a local club match and have it be a fun and fair shooting challenge for all skill levels. If I setup Stage 9 at any of the local matches around me it would yield the same horrible results if not worse. This is a standards stage that is very much like a classifier. Show me any active classifier that would yield the same horrid results across all classifications. I will save you some time, it does not exist. So what is Stage 9 really testing? Its testing luck, not skill. 

 

Look up Baseball Standard 03-14, I've seen a number of people do very poorly (granted they didn't zero the stage due to being fixed time).

https://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/03-14.pdf

 

There was no luck in stage 9 you either have a solid weak hand and strong hand skill or you failed miserably. Lots of people don't have that skill, because they rarely practice it, but at the distances involved it is doable

[teros135]

4 hours ago, ChuckS said:

Bob would of beat Nils if you threw out 4,7,9,14,17, or 22.

Bad stages, obviously.  Throw 'em all out!  (kidding, kidding!  )

Edited October 27, 2016 by teros135

[MikeRush]

2 hours ago, CHA-LEE said:

Just because you like getting your nuts crushed in a vise for the only reason of "THE NATIONALS HAS TO BE HARD" doesn't make it the right thing to do for everyone.  

I can understand the frustration here. If I had shot that stage I would be happy to walk away from it with a non zero score (because I suck at strong and weak hand shooting). I get it, and I agree that I don't think it is in line with what we are used to seeing. That being said, if everybody gets their nuts crushed in a vice we wouldn't call that "luck". It is a shooting challenge that was equally difficult for all involved. It isn't like it was a non-shooting challenge, or inconsistent target presentations, or getting your nuts crushed in a vice.

1 hour ago, teros135 said:

Bad stages, obviously.  Throw 'em all out!  (kidding, kidding!  )

If you throw away stages 1 through 19, 21 and 22 from 2013 Nats I would have been in the top 16. Those were clearly bad stages.

In 2014 I would have repeated a top 16 performance if we just threw out stages 1-17, and 19-27. Same thing- just a lot of bad luck and stages.

[MikeBurgess]

1 hour ago, PPGMD said:

 

Look up Baseball Standard 03-14, I've seen a number of people do very poorly (granted they didn't zero the stage due to being fixed time).

https://www.uspsa.org/classifiers/03-14.pdf

 

There was no luck in stage 9 you either have a solid weak hand and strong hand skill or you failed miserably. Lots of people don't have that skill, because they rarely practice it, but at the distances involved it is doable

and there in lies the solution, I have run several "hard" stages at local matches, and making a hard stage fixed time solves the penalty problem for all levels of shooter you get what you shot period, but you are not hammered for what you were unable to shoot. The best shooter still wins the stage but the regular shooters finish without being kicked in the groin.

[teros135]

[teros135]

Sounds like we're moving toward "what could have happened, did".