Top USPSA Shooters - Individual Classes

[Dowter]

---

I had one suggestion to improve the method, if you weren't already doing it. That was to use division-specific percentages for each Area match.

---

I'm doing that.  I compare open results at area matches to open results at the nationals, limited at area to limited at nationals, etc.  I never use the "all divisions combined" score sheets at some matches.

Here's an example - area 8

Open

Shooter         Nat %     Area8 %   relative difficulty %

l2458          100           100           100 %

ty38861        92.29         91.57         100.7863 %

ty5804         88.12         90.59         97.27344 %

l1205          80.34         76.59         104.8962 %

f45104         77.41         76.57         101.097 %

fy24894        77.13         81.09         95.11654 %

(shooters removed for brevity)

ty46549        46.37         49.1          94.43992 %

fy34097        36.49         36.55         99.83585 %

Match Modifier Average( 1677.97 / 1662.67 ) 100.9202 %

99% will be used

Limited

Shooter         Nat %     Area8 %   relative difficulty %

ty31992        88.53         100           88.53 %

a30288         84.44         82.42         102.4509 %

ty41202        74.88         88.33         84.77301 %

a37693         70.25         61.93         113.4345 %

fy21412        66.03         75.57         87.37594 %

ty36752        62.83         71.48         87.89871 %

ty38523        60.47         73.71         82.03772 %

a41734         45.38         52.85         85.86566 %

Match Modifier Average( 552.81 / 606.29 ) 91.17914 %

Lim-10

Shooter         Nat %     Area8 %   relative difficulty %

ty31992        94.3          100           94.3 %

ty43660        60.7          60.89         99.68796 %

l2460          63.9          63.57         100.5191 %

Match Modifier Average( 218.9 / 224.46 ) 97.52294 %

Production

Shooter         Nat %     Area8 %   relative difficulty %

a42164         95.35         100           95.35 %

ty36752        62.47         70.86         88.15975 %

ty38431        45.66         44.06         103.6314 %

ty37700        85.43         81.85         104.3739 %

a29786         74.65         76.11         98.08173 %

a38675         58.61         60.7          96.55684 %

a44239         53.89         54.81         98.32147 %

Match Modifier Average( 476.06 / 488.39 ) 97.47537 %

Revolver

Shooter         Nat %     Area8 %   relative difficulty %

l1636          44.66         62.73         71.19401 %

ty36829        81.16         100           81.16 %

Match Modifier Average( 125.82 / 162.73 ) 77.31826 %

And after I calculate the "Match Modifier Average" I multiply that times the shooters' scores in that division.

Two things you'll notice with my scoring above.

1. The Match Modifier Average won't get better than a 99% for anything other than the nationals.  This ensures that the top guys on lists are the guys who won the nationals.  This give the ranks more authenticity.  

2. I don't just add up all the percentages and divide by the number of shooters.  I add up the total national percentages and divide by the total area percentages.  What this does is marginalize situations where a  36% nationals shooter gets an 18% at an area match and screws everything up with a 200%.  This also gives more weight to shooters with higher percentages.  Usually the difference between the two ways of scoring is very slim except when goofy things happen in the scoring and then the way I use works better.

(Edited by Dowter at 12:31 pm on Dec. 27, 2002)

[professor]

Comparing different matches for relative difficulty is a whole 'nother topic, requiring a totally different approach than Dowter is taking in his shooter rankings.

Question: What makes for a more difficult match? In other words, what ought to go into computing the ranking of match difficulty?

How about the round count? That's likely not a significant factor, because anyone can pump up the round count by putting in a bunch of Bill Drill speed shoots.

Number of stages? Probably not significant, unless it's physically demanding just to complete the match.

Target availability? Lots of head shots, hard cover, no shoots, peek-a-boo stages that make it difficult to find targets, let alone shoot them fast. Yeah.

Technically difficult shots? Fast-moving swingers, Texas stars [for those who haven't practiced shooting them], multiple appearing/disappearing targets, etc. Yeah.

Speed shoots? Difficulty related to equipment cycling time and how fast you can index on target and pull the trigger. Yeah?

Required Reloads? Yeah, if only to prevent you from running a Big Stick in every mag pouch.

With all of these parameters, how can you even gather the information necessary to compute a single, match-descriptive number we can call the Match Difficulty Factor? Even with stage diagrams, you can't determine a lot of these factors. Plus, the actual shoot is often different when seen in person.

Consider that the only information is what would be available from the match results posted in standard form. Basically, you know the shooters' stage times, points scored, penalties, hit factors, and relative HFs (stage percentage and stage points).

Hit Factor is a powerful comparison tool. You can tell just from the high HF whether the stage is a speed shoot or a technically demanding field course. HHF of 12 means someone is cranking out the shots at a batch of wide open targets. HHF of 6 means you're really working to find, or get to, the targets.

So I see the stage HHFs as an important part of the match difficulty evaluation. But coming up with a single number to characterize each match? Too analytical, even for me.

[Dowter]

---

Quote: ...With all of these parameters, how can you even gather the information necessary to compute a single, match-descriptive number we can call the Match Difficulty Factor? ...

---

Right.  I don't even try.  When I say "match difficulty" I am talking about how hard it is to get a high percentage.

My stats say nothing of whether it was a good match or a bad match, whether the match was easy shooting (open targets at ten feet) or hard shooting (swing from a vine carying a Labrador on your back).

My scoring only compares relative difficulty on getting a high percentage based on how competitors have done at different matches.

(Edited by Dowter at 12:43 pm on Dec. 27, 2002)

[professor]

OK Dowter,

Looks like you've come up with a comparison scheme that is workable. I'm looking forward to seeing the final listings come Jan 1.

Also, these ought to be more relevant than the "Top 20" lists. I've seen some  problems with those lists in the past, but basically, the listing just carry those people who happened to hit a classifier average just right, so that it fell within the narrow range that made the list.

Sedro Woolley would do better to publicize the shooters who achieved a higher classification each month.

[Dowter]

---

Quote: Also, these ought to be more relevant than the "Top 20" lists. I've seen some  problems with those lists in the past,

---

"some"?  

[chuckbradley]

The top 20 list has many problems. In more cases than not it doesnt reflect ones ability to perform at a real match. There are many "paper GM's" who shoot classifiers over & over again to get a top score. But look at where they finish at a major match. They simply cant perfrom to the same level where the top 20 list shows them. There are several who havent shot in years but remain on the list. I have advocated for years that one must shoot at least 2 classifiers or 1 major match a year to remain on the list.

I want to applaud your efforts. With your willingness to include matches you have missed or were not aware of I am anxious to see the new results.

[Duane Thomas]

I'm curious how David Sevigny came in 2nd Production. True, Todd Jarrett won the Factory Gun Nationals (David came in 2nd), but David won the World Shoot.

[Dowter]

I didn't use the world shoot  for the ratings.

[Duane Thomas]

Ah. Why not, just out of curiosity.

[Flexmoney]

Different rules..different games,maybe?

[Dowter]

The rules are similiar enough it's that there are other problems.

There's no USPSA numbers associated with names.(it would be fairly easy to figure them out for the top dogs but still...)

It's not a USPSA match.

I only rate shooters who shoot in the US.

It would be cool to make the list international but until other countries have codes associeated with shooter names it just can't be done.

[ajm]

Dowter,

I am a guest on this board and was given the link by a couple of shooting buddies who are obviously more computer literate than I.  The point of this post is twofold, first, I would like to think (hope? dream?) that the ratings are fairly accurate as I came in 3rd in production division (not too bad for a one handed fat guy).  I do have some doubts though, as not many of the top production shooters actually shoot production at the state and section matches in my part of the country.  I won production division at 4 state or section matches and two area matches, but never actually shot against any of the top rated Production shooters.  Second, I appreciate your use of matches that did not have enough draw for classifier percentage.  NONE of the "major" matches that I have attended has ever had the requisite 3 GMs in production to be counted as a classifier.  At the nationals they counted that match anyway and several shooters made GM behind it but unless they count 3 GMs in limited as the requisite # and then reduce their scores by the same amount that was used in calculating the high hit factors for production classification purposes, I dont anticipate most matches meeting the magic # to be counted.   Sorry, sore spot, anyway, great work and I do appreciate what it has to take to put all of this together.  Myself excepted, it appears to be pretty accurate from the shooting that I have seen this year.

ajm

[Dowter]

Wow, you're a little humble for a guy that won production division at Area 4, Area 6, Alabama Sectional, Georgia State Championship, and the Tennessee Sectional Championship.  In fact I don't have you listed as having lost a major match in 2002.

As I've said elsewhere, I'm confident that the limited and open ratings are spot on.  I'm not as confident about the Limited 10 and Production ratings.  Still, I see no problem in having you ranked third.

You should shoot in this years Nationals.  I think that you'll give Sevigny and Jarrett a run for their money.

(Edited by Dowter at 11:19 pm on Dec. 30, 2002)

[Flexmoney]

AJ,

Dowter's list is ALL about Major match performace.  I think he does a pretty good job correlating the results with all the matches.

Sure sounds like you deserve you ranking.  

[ajm]

Well, sometimes you get lucky.  I am not a big traveler, for the most part I like to stick within one day driving distance.  Besides, I am reeeaal cheap and those big matches are spensive.  Why do you think that I am shooting a pretty much stock Glock17 with lead reloads for all these matches.  I don't know, now that I think about it someone else from here might be going...

thanks for the kindness,

ajm

[Dowter]

In case anyone is coming straight to this topic and missing the other posts announcing the rankings are finalized...

The rankings are finalized.

The final rankings for 2002 are here - http://www.topguns.info

[SmittyFL]

Dowter,

I noticed the list hasn't been updated. I didn't realize you were the guy until I did a search on BE and found this thread. (I've only been on here a year) Is the list done or are you only doing once a year updates?

[sfpmb]

back to the top for this one, I actually found this while searching for something on google. I read through the list and it is funny alot of them are still active at the top. Some of the people on the list, you kind of wonder what they are doing now.

[Hi-Power Jack]

back to the top for this one, I actually found this while searching for something on google. I read through the list and it is funny alot of them are still active at the top. Some of the people on the list, you kind of wonder what they are doing now.

Sounds like a great idea to update this topic,

so here goes.

I took a two day course three years ago with Max Michel,

and recommend it highly. Learned all the basics and

intermediates you need for IPSC/USPSA. Really improved

my performance, from the C Level to the B Level.

Took another course two months ago, and it might be that

I'm more advanced now, but didn't get as much out of it.

[Flexmoney]

back to the top for this one, I actually found this while searching for something on google. I read through the list and it is funny alot of them are still active at the top. Some of the people on the list, you kind of wonder what they are doing now.

Sounds like a great idea to update this topic,

so here goes.

I took a two day course three years ago with Max Michel,

and recommend it highly. Learned all the basics and

intermediates you need for IPSC/USPSA. Really improved

my performance, from the C Level to the B Level.

Took another course two months ago, and it might be that

I'm more advanced now, but didn't get as much out of it.

Ya didn't read the thread, did ya?

(I thought the same thing on seeing the title this time around...but the thread isn't about training classes.)

[Jim Norman]

Wow, this is a blast from the past! It would be neat and probably more than a little humbling to see where one stands after 9 years.

This would be an interesting bit of information to have at any given point in our history. We could track our performance based on major match performance as opposed to the classifiers. It is probably a better way to rank those of us that shoot majors then the classifiers. Maybe this could be a way to modify the classification system?

[Hi-Power Jack]

back to the top for this one, I actually found this while searching for something on google. I read through the list and it is funny alot of them are still active at the top. Some of the people on the list, you kind of wonder what they are doing now.

Sounds like a great idea to update this topic,

so here goes.

I took a two day course three years ago with Max Michel,

and recommend it highly. Learned all the basics and

intermediates you need for IPSC/USPSA. Really improved

my performance, from the C Level to the B Level.

Ya didn't read the thread, did ya?

(I thought the same thing on seeing the title this time around...but the thread isn't about training classes.)

Oops, sorry, please disregard my previous comment (although it is still correct - just not in the correct spot:((

Jack

[ChuckS]

Ya didn't read the thread, did ya?

(I thought the same thing on seeing the title this time around...but the thread isn't about training classes.)

Another senseless tragedy due to using "class" instead of "division". Will the madness ever stop?

[Flexmoney]

I am looking at reviving this idea. I'd like some input (so please become familiar with the concept). It is just brain storming, at this point.

In my mind...If this moves forward, this would be in addition to our classification system, not a replacement of it. - Value Added.

One issue is how to explain it, along with our current classification system. There could be confusion. Heck, our current classification system is a bit confusing, at first. But, people do get it figured out.

One thought I had was comparing it to golf...

- Our current Classification System - It is kinda like a golfer's handicap. It lets you compare yourself against shooters at a similar level. And, it works at the local match level. (you don't have to shoot majors to get a feel for how you are doing)

- A (National) Major Match Ranking system - That would be like the rankings that the golfers that are on tour(s) get. They get ranked based on their performance/finishes in bigger events.

Is that a good way to put it?

[ctay]

That is the way I normally try to explain it. Adding a major match modifier may help cut down on the sandbagging aspect too.