Jump to content
Brian Enos's Forums... Maku mozo!

Top USPSA Shooters - Individual Classes


Dowter

Recommended Posts

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.

I think it's more understandable that our current classification system because it's more like the conventional sports with which we grow up.

- 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?

A (National) Major Match Ranking system is the perfect way to phrase it, imo, because that's exactly what it is -- no more.

Would be nice if Dowter could be contacted and asked to donate his notes / code / formulae from all his hard work to the community. Volunteers within the shooting community could then maintain the project going forward, as their time permitted.

Two thoughts --

1) Does the data still have to be scraped from random web pages, some guy's spreadsheet, emailed pdf files, etc, or can it all be accessed from a single location (like USPSA) ?

2) Someone like Nifybytes / Practiscore could really make this project happen overnight. They've got lots of the data already input and ready for manipulation. If they were to expose an API, I could code this puppy up in a jiffy, given agreement on the proper way to compute the rankings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 113
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

- 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.

This is a really cool idea. I dig it. IMO, our current classification system is flawed. Not majorly, but enough to take notice. I don't think Master and GM, as they stand now, mean a whole lot.

So I would take it one step further. I would cap the class you can get by just shooting classifiers at club matches at A class. M and GM could only be attained through placement on this combined scale (or just at major matches in general if it didn't pan out). Also make it retroactive so more than half the GM cards go away. Boy would that be unpopular! :D

I think it would bring some meaning back to the classification and eliminate the "paper M/GM" effect. I'm only a Master inside of a relatively small shooting box. The card is meaningless to me. I wish I could be proud of it, like I was proud of A class, but I just know I'm not at that level yet and don't really deserve the card, even if the system says I do.

2) Someone like Nifybytes / Practiscore could really make this project happen overnight.

That was my first thought after reading the middle part of your post.

Edited by DonovanM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Does the data still have to be scraped from random web pages, some guy's spreadsheet, emailed pdf files, etc, or can it all be accessed from a single location (like USPSA) ?

It would be great to have it automated, I'll defer to Rob B. (Area 7 Director) on that, if we get there. But, as I recall from talking with Dowter back in the day, he was able to just copy and paste the match results (which are handily posted on the USPSA website) into an Excel sheet. So, even with that, it wasn't overly labor intensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be really, really cool to say that you are in the top 50, top 100, etc. That would mean something. As the years go buy and M/GM becomes more and more common (and the bar isn't raised as time goes by with the classifiers)the top mark gets watered down and doesn't really mean as much as it once did. I think it is a great idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flex,

one o the things that popped into my head is that I seem to remember that this system favors participation -- i.e. I ranked higher than I should have at the time, simply because I was (very) active, shooting majors....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just jumping in here cold, so excuse my ignorance if this makes no sense :)

Another sport I used to compete in uses a points system that accumulated based on activity and performance at events. Basically, if you won an event in your class, you got 10 points, plus two points for every person you beat in that class. If you won 2nd place, you got 5 points, plus two per beat. Third got three points and two per beat. Everyone else got two points per beat. The idea is to reward those that get out to lots of events, both promoting the sport and recognizing a certain dedication to it. At the end of the season, awards were given to high point earners in a particular region (Southwest, Northeast, etc).

So, to translate this to USPSA:

Have a points accumulation system for Level II+ events. Points are collected by Area and compared at the national level, like Classifiers are now. So, let's say you are an A-Class shooter that went to 3 Sectionals and won twice. You would have 20 points. Let's also say you beat 40 other A-Class folks in those three matches, so now you have 100 points. The other guy shows up and he's only done two sectionals and won one of them. He therefore has accumulated 10 points for winning one, and 50 points for beating 25 other folks in his class at those matches. So, he has a total of 60 points.

You have 100 points, the other guys has 60 points. Both are Classified as A, but you being more active, have more points. These points can be used in a handicap method as Flex suggested, but also as an award method at the end of the year to recognize folks that were active and performed well in their respective Areas.

I'll leave it up to you guys to figure out ways to use these points. Ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I don't think the classification system is that flawed. Don't see a reason for any changes This could go the other way too. Cap at A class? I think I read that idea in the thread. Unless of course you go to bigger matches? Then the M and GM get applied as warranted, by how you finish?

What about the guy that doesn't shoot the majors? Just a bunch of locals? I can see it working against him. He beats all the M/GM's, but he's only an A? Sandbagging basta#%!!!!

No system is going to be perfect. Ours is pretty good IMHO. I know the sandbaggers and the grandbaggers. They dont amount to crap imho i could care less anout those types and shy away from them This wouldn't change a thing, possibly it could add to bagging in the lower classifications.

Better really ask, what could be induced by this change? No one ever seriously asks that question. The advocates for change always, ALWAYS, poo poo any detractions to their proposed change. These types are all knowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, guess I got hung up on DonovanM's post. I'm still trying to decide what it gains us? I know there is a difference between skill sets and ability within every class. Not all GM's are equal, or M's, A's etc...

Gathering the info and crunching #'s tells us what?

I guess I'm looking for the reasoning. I'm an A and got third A at Ohio State, then let's pretend I shot Area 5 and got 4th, area 6 placed 2, and Indiana I got 5th. What value add do I get? Some huge point series prize from USPSA headquarters? Not being funny here, I'm just trying to understand exactly what we would be gaining, how does it add any sense or value to the system?

Convince me.

I'm thinking that the same 20-30 big dogs accross all divisions will still be there and we know them already. Of course most of these guys are above GM and I think that's the skew that is missed. These GM's are so far over GM that it makes the regular local GM look like some kind of poser. I don't think a guy like You (Flex) is anything but a GM. You earned it. Can you stack up in the top 10 at Nationals? Well hell yes you could if you shot the rounds that the super GM's are shooting. if you dedicated each and everyday to shooting.

Again, convince me, exactly what "value" is added. I'm open to it, just trying to understand.

At this point I think a simple "+" sign added to a GM's card is all that's needed. This would be for guys who win the big events. Then a complete rethink of classifiers. Mostly USPSA dictating what classifier will be shot at level 3 and up and re doing HHF based soley on "+" card holders actual match scores on them.

Ok, I rambled a little, sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, guess I got hung up on DonovanM's post. I'm still trying to decide what it gains us? I know there is a difference between skill sets and ability within every class. Not all GM's are equal, or M's, A's etc...

Gathering the info and crunching #'s tells us what?

I guess I'm looking for the reasoning. I'm an A and got third A at Ohio State, then let's pretend I shot Area 5 and got 4th, area 6 placed 2, and Indiana I got 5th. What value add do I get? Some huge point series prize from USPSA headquarters? Not being funny here, I'm just trying to understand exactly what we would be gaining, how does it add any sense or value to the system?

Convince me.

I'm thinking that the same 20-30 big dogs accross all divisions will still be there and we know them already. Of course most of these guys are above GM and I think that's the skew that is missed. These GM's are so far over GM that it makes the regular local GM look like some kind of poser. I don't think a guy like You (Flex) is anything but a GM. You earned it. Can you stack up in the top 10 at Nationals? Well hell yes you could if you shot the rounds that the super GM's are shooting. if you dedicated each and everyday to shooting.

Again, convince me, exactly what "value" is added. I'm open to it, just trying to understand.

At this point I think a simple "+" sign added to a GM's card is all that's needed. This would be for guys who win the big events. Then a complete rethink of classifiers. Mostly USPSA dictating what classifier will be shot at level 3 and up and re doing HHF based soley on "+" card holders actual match scores on them.

Ok, I rambled a little, sorry.

why are no current GM's asking to add to the classification just the lower class shooters thinking they know what is best for the everybody?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some very good GM shooters in this thread. It is worth the discussion. That is why Flex brought it back to life.

I tend to play the devils advocate role, no disrespectt, its how i think i guess. I know by asking questions and digging a little I can help myself understand the concept and hopefully it will also bring out concepts maybe no one has thought.

Edited by Chris iliff
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some very good GM shooters in this thread. It is worth the discussion. That is why Flex brought it back to life.

I tend to play the devils advocate role, no disrespectt, its how i think i guess. I know by asking questions and digging a little I can help myself understand the concept and hopefully it will also bring out concepts maybe no one has thought.

the idea is a good idea and i would like to see it, but what you posted about adding a + to the classification card is what I was referring to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1341454324[/url]' post='1737484']
1341453076[/url]' post='1737478']

I would be in.

In what? Exactly what would the "value add" be? This thing goes clear back to 2002 I think. I've read it all and I am probably missing some points. Maybe Flex will sum it all up in a post.

From what I gather instead of just being a 97% GM in production based on classifieds I would also be say 32 overall in production in USPSA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, just a ranking based off of certain matches? Someplace to go to see the rankings, like this forum or a seperate site? I could see the value in that. That is worthwhile. I don't know if it'd be solid unless all matches could be included. That's a lot of # crunching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this is something the members are going to support, I don't have a problem with it. However, if this is something we are going to ask HQ to do, I think their time can be spent on better things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think that access to the #'s available on Uspsa's match results page would be great. Would they allow that?

Now that I get it. It would be a value add IMHO. Probably reflect a more true ranking in some instances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All level II matches have results uploaded to USPSA.ORG (or at least they should). Some judicious page scraping should get you the numbers you are looking for.

Consider, though, that this means that to be ranked you have to participate in Level II matches. If somebody goes dormant for a period of time, does their ranking go down to the point that you'll have a 1 year dormant GM competing against a very current D class shooter? Or the flip side: A very active B class shooter who travels to all the matches be ranked higher than a GM who only hits 4 matches a year?

Edited by Skydiver
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the idea but it needs to be perfected. A good place to go is look at Golf World Rankings - I'm not 100% of how they do it but they have some formula that they determine who is #1 in the world - may be worth looking in and seeing how it could be tweaked.

Level 2 matches are regular - Level 3 are Majors in golf terms

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At some point this is a distinction without a difference.

Everybody knows that there are guys like Rob Leatham, Nils, Sevigny.........and then the rest of the mere mortal GM/M shooters.

From time to time a "Super GM" rating gets talked about, usually based on major match performance. Pretty obvious who the SGMs would be.

Substantively I don't think it would change anything.

I've actually petitioned USPSA to lower my classification based on my sucky match performance.

My wife asked me what difference it would really make. I couldn't come up with a really solid answer other than "It would be a more accurate representation of my performance."

FY42385

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At some point this is a distinction without a difference.

Everybody knows that there are guys like Rob Leatham, Nils, Sevigny.........and then the rest of the mere mortal GM/M shooters.

From time to time a "Super GM" rating gets talked about, usually based on major match performance. Pretty obvious who the SGMs would be.

Substantively I don't think it would change anything.

I've actually petitioned USPSA to lower my classification based on my sucky match performance.

My wife asked me what difference it would really make. I couldn't come up with a really solid answer other than "It would be a more accurate representation of my performance."

FY42385

Honestly I don't see the # placement as meaning anything other than just a ranking. Say there are 150 GM Limited shooters, I'm 75th at 95%. I'm still a GM just 75th in there. To me it would mean absolutely nothing for the classes other than at the water fountain conversations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At some point this is a distinction without a difference.

...

From time to time a "Super GM" rating gets talked about...

Substantively I don't think it would change anything.

This is different from the current classification system (and not meant to replace it).

A persons classification won't have any bearing on a ranking system like this. This would just take into account major match performance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understood; but at some point we are quantifying something just for the sake of quanitifying it.

For arguments sake, Corey is 75th, you are 74th, and I'm 80th.

The three of us go to Area 8, shoot the match of our lives, and still get beat by a 17 year old savant. I place higher than you in the match, and you in turn beat Corey.

Now what?

We reach a point where what matters is how you shoot "now."

FY42385

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...