6/28/18 New high hit factors and retired classifiers

[kernelofwisdom]

56 minutes ago, malobukov said:

2017 CZ USA Iron Sights Nationals, Production:

Can we see the distribution for each class? @malobukov Median doesn't tell the whole story and is a bit misleading.

Edited July 2, 2018 by kernelofwisdom

[tkane]

With such a big swing I would feel better if they retroactively applied this. I'm currently sitting at 84% (under new HHF I would be at 77%). So if I do make M with 5 "Old" classifiers and 1 "New" classifier, I'm gonna feel like I don't deserve it, or at the least like there should be an asterisk next to my classification. 

[Flatland Shooter]

1 hour ago, tkane said:

With such a big swing I would feel better if they retroactively applied this. I'm currently sitting at 84% (under new HHF I would be at 77%). So if I do make M with 5 "Old" classifiers and 1 "New" classifier, I'm gonna feel like I don't deserve it, or at the least like there should be an asterisk next to my classification. 

 

But what about the folks that worked hard and practiced to achieve a milestone like going from "C" to "A".  They did it under the rules and HFs at the time.  They were 100% legal.   Having done nothing wrong, should they be penalized simply because things were updated?  If they received their class using classifiers that are now retired, should their numbers be recalculated with those deleted?

 

 

[Matt1]

 
But what about the folks that worked hard and practiced to achieve a milestone like going from "C" to "A".  They did it under the rules and HFs at the time.  They were 100% legal.   Having done nothing wrong, should they be penalized simply because things were updated?  If they received their class using classifiers that are now retired, should their numbers be recalculated with those deleted?
 
 

Benchmarks by their very nature aren’t static. Who would be happy with a grade knowing that they only achieved it under the old rules.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Matt1]

Benchmarks by their very nature aren’t static. Who would be happy with a grade knowing that they only achieved it under the old rules.

I don’t shoot USPSA (or live in the US). In Oz the grading system for IPSC is different. Our “classifiers” are really only used for new shooters. After that it’s match bumps only.

I just regraded to Master in PD on the weekend but I’m actually not that happy about it cause it wasn’t against our National champ. I won’t feel like I deserve it till I shoot a Master grade score against him.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SCTaylor]

3 hours ago, Matt1 said:

 

 

I just regraded to Master in PD on the weekend but I’m actually not that happy about it cause it wasn’t against our National champ. I won’t feel like I deserve it till I shoot a Master grade score against him.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

 

 

 

Not sure if serious or sarcastic?

 

[Matt1]

 
Not sure if serious or sarcastic?
 

Totally serious. Read the paragraph above. I’m from Australia. We basically (it’s complicated) do match bumps only.

I shot 75% in our Nats a couple of months ago and 91% of the winner of our State Champs on the weekend.

That guy shot 85% at the Nats. I don’t feel like I could score 85% of the National Champ.

I guess grandbagging makes some people feel good [emoji848]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rowdyb]

Just erase every classifier that isn't from a  Nationals finish that a person in USPSA has shot and then start over as of July 1.

 

And the graph is misleading as @B_RAD stated because it doesn't show the numbers. Rather show what percentage of people in a certain classification shot at or below that number. The conventional wisdom Mink told me was that almost everyone shoots 10% below their classification at Nats.

 

But thinking more root cause, I'm not sure what problem they were trying to solve????

Edited July 2, 2018 by rowdyb

[Flatland Shooter]

4 minutes ago, Matt1 said:

I guess grandbagging makes some people feel good
 

 

 

So you feel you are undeserving of your current classification.  What have you done about it.  Does the IPSC Australia have provisions for going down a class or two?  When will you make the request.

 

In my case the new HF would drop my percentage a bit but not take me to a lower class.  I no longer shoot major matches so my classification does not affect others.  I shoot against myself.

 

There are folks that take great pride in achieving goals.  They have spent the time to dryfire and livefire to make their goal.  To take that away does not seem right.  Perhaps Mr. Foley and the BOD agree.

 

Some may do it by "grandbagging" and that's fine by me.  Come major match time they have only hurt themselves.  I have more of a problem with "sandbagging".  

 

 

[Matt1]

 
So you feel you are undeserving of your current classification.  What have you done about it.  Does the IPSC Australia have provisions for going down a class or two?  When will you make the request.
 
In my case the new HF would drop my percentage a bit but not take me to a lower class.  I no longer shoot major matches so my classification does not affect others.  I shoot against myself.
 
There are folks that take great pride in achieving goals.  They have spent the time to dryfire and livefire to make their goal.  To take that away does not seem right.  Perhaps Mr. Foley and the BOD agree.
 
Some may do it by "grandbagging" and that's fine by me.  Come major match time they have only hurt themselves.  I have more of a problem with "sandbagging".  
 
 

You can request to downgrade if you haven’t shot your grade in a match in the last 12 months. You automatically get down graded if you don’t shoot your grade in the last 24 months.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rowdyb]

Looking at some stand alone Production nationals, so they each had over 300 competitors and only looking at the top classifications:

2015 only 5/28 GM shot a 95% or greater match finish. Or roughly 18%. So 82% of GM didn't.

2015 only 6/56 M shot an 85% or greater match finish. Or roughly 11%.  So 89% of M didn't.

 

2016 only 6 of 36 GM shot a 95% or greater match finish. Or roughly 17%. So 83% of GM didn't.

2016 only 5 of 51 M shot an 85% or greater match finish. Or roughly 10%. So 90% of M didn't.

 

Let that sink in, if you didn't know it already. Roughly 85% of the very best shooters with the highest classifications don't/can't match that in match performance against who is probably setting the HHF we're all being judged on.

 

So, what is the goal of classification? Is that function tied to matches? And to what degree? And I mean this at the organizational/national level, not as individual shooters. What problem was the update intended to fix?

 

It's old though probably still representative but the last data I looked at in 2015 had the numbers for total GM's at 300-ish and M shooters at 1,000-ish. When only some 25,000-ish people were members.  (1.3% or members were GM.  4.1% were M. So the top two classifications en toto only came from 5% of the membership) We're now at 30,200-ish members for USPSA in 2018 but I doubt the ratio changed that much...

 

Anyways, I'm done being irritated by this. I was Charlie Brown getting ready to kick the football and USPSA was Lucy and jerked the ball out of the way at the last second. I'll still line up to keep kicking it.

Edited July 2, 2018 by rowdyb

[mwc]

 
Anyways, I'm done being irritated by this. I was Charlie Brown getting ready to kick the football and USPSA was Lucy and jerked the ball out of the way at the last second. I'll still line up to keep kicking it.

This pretty much sums it up for me as well. Tired of the moving standards. Really don't care anymore.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

[malobukov]

22 hours ago, kernelofwisdom said:

Can we see the distribution for each class? @malobukov Median doesn't tell the whole story and is a bit misleading. 

It's a bit tricky to show all that data on one graph, but here's the closest I have. This is based on all 2017 area matches combined in production division. I don't have it for nationals, but you can tell from the other two graphs shown before that it should be similar.

 

R²≈0.57, so classification does rank major match performance, albeit not perfectly. The dashed line is OLS regression. It's easy to see why the slope is slightly below 1. Note the point at (100%,100%) where all match winners end up. That point is by definition above average GM result, regardless of which kind of average you pick (mean, median, etc.)

 

That does not mean that current classification system is perfect, either before or after HHF update. I would actually prefer to have HHFs be based on some quantile (e.g., mean + 2.5 standard deviations). This way it won't be affected so much by outliers (real or statistical), judgemental calls, and hero-or-zero.

 

Another alternative is to assign class by aggregated match rankings. There are algorithms like PlackettLuce that are designed specifically for that purpose, but they lack the simplicity and transparency of the current system.

[Matt1]

Classifications are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how good are you compared to the top of your division.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Matt1]

Classifications are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how good are you compared to the top of your division.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Flyingpig]

17 minutes ago, Matt1 said:

Classifications are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is how good are you compared to the top of your division.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Exactly. Pull yourselves up by the bootstaps and get back to it. So it takes a bit longer to move up in class. Big deal. Keep practicing and move up. I am a B class shooter and shot an A classification (99-22) on my first classifier since the changes . I'm perfectly happy. Beat your competition and the rest will fall into place. Don't get hung up on classification.

[rowdyb]

I know exactly how good I am compared to my competition because I shoot multiple section, area and national matches every year. year after year.

 

i have multiple, concurrent goals where some are related to individual skills, match performance and classification. come back to me and tell me it doesn't matter when you're 3% from GM( for the second time now) and then the goal posts get moved.

[MikeBurgess]

I think the answer to the question "what was the problem?" Is we had a bunch of classifiers with wildly out of sync HHF vs what shooters could actually do. This went both ways. Many of the discontinued classifiers were the worst offenders with impossibly high HHFs so much so that nobody ran them often for that reason.
Now all the classifiers if adjusted correctly should be equally hard to score well on.
So instead of having a group of classifiers to choose from that vary in difficulty around 35% they should all be equal and nobody gets screwed because the MD chose a hard one this month.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[Flyingpig]

21 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

I know exactly how good I am compared to my competition because I shoot multiple section, area and national matches every year. year after year.

 

i have multiple, concurrent goals where some are related to individual skills, match performance and classification. come back to me and tell me it doesn't matter when you're 3% from GM( for the second time now) and then the goal posts get moved.

 

I get it. The key though is your statement "I know exactly how good I am compared to my competition...." In the end THATS what really matters. You are one that absolutely knows that you WILL make GM at some point. Thats all I'm saying. I don't know how you have finished in those bigger matches but in my eyes I'd much rather have a Section or Area win on my resume than a GM card. I know (and I'm sure you do too)  many Ms that can hardly compete at a high B or low A level in matches. I have no problem if a few of those get weeded out in this new updated process. It will absolutely make paper Ms and GMs cards a bit tougher to come by. It will also make M and GM cards a tad bit more prestigious. I am good with that IF I ever attain that level. 

[wtturn]

My opinion is that it should not be possible for anyone to shoot 120+% on a classifier. Top guys, or hero runs, whatever. That should be made mathematically impossible.

I think when someone really hooks up or has a once in a lifetime performance that you probably ought to see no higher than 105 +/- on a spectacular run.

We had several classifiers that you could reasonably hit 110, 115, 120+ on and that seems to have been corrected.

Shooters of the sport in aggregate are improving. The classification system needs to move with trends.

If there HHF remain fixed, then eventually you'll have ten percent, and then a quarter of shooters as M or GM. That's obviously undesirable.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6003 using Tapatalk

[rowdyb]

22 minutes ago, wtturn said:

If there HHF remain fixed,

I would have rather seen the easy ones retired and no longer used then. Especially as they plan on creating so many new ones this year's nats. Maybe the real issue is classifier shelf life? Again, little transparency from the org about all of this.

 

Even with so many "easy" ones I still didn't see anyone making M, let alone GM, at an out of the ordinary rate while I was in living in CA or AR and shooting all over the US. For most people who are USPSA members even A was out of reach with the "old hhf" problem. M and GM shooters were not falling out of the sky and causing the org to lose integrity in the eyes of all of its membership. No way in hell even if the hhf stayed static for 10 years could 10% of the membership make it M.

 

And if the org got behind in their business, not having the time or ability to do the math, coding or checking that is their problem. Doing it in one fell swoop and trying to make up for years of innattention to the hhf's made it our problem. Especially how "they" decided to classify two new divisions with a guess rather than real data.

Edited July 3, 2018 by rowdyb

[rowdyb]

44 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

a bunch of classifiers w

A bunch? 6? It sure wasn't double digits from looking at the comparison charts I've seen out there.

 

Evidently I'm the vocal minority in thinking this was poorly thought out, explained and implemented. I should stop posting about it. Enjoy your own personal journey and I'll enjoy mine.

Edited July 3, 2018 by rowdyb

[MikeBurgess]

A bunch? 6? It sure wasn't double digits from looking at the comparison charts I've seen out there.

Yes a bunch with inaccurate HHF all the fixed time long range standards that got dropped all the ones everyone is flipping out because the HHF went up a bunch all the ones that had the HHF go down a bunch. Add that up and a pretty large % of the classifiers had bad HHF.

Some had made up HHF. Some I know the stage diagrams were wrong vs what was shot when they were created.



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[tanks]

1 hour ago, rowdyb said:

...i have multiple, concurrent goals where some are related to individual skills, match performance and classification. come back to me and tell me it doesn't matter when you're 3% from GM( for the second time now) and then the goal posts get moved.

 

Some classifiers (for example El Pres) got their HHF increased quite a bit, some stayed the same, and some actually went down. So, I think the goal posts depend on the classifier being shot.

[MikeBurgess]

 
Some classifiers (for example El Pres) got their HHF increased quite a bit, some stayed the same, and some actually went down. So, I think the goal posts depend on the classifier being shot.

^^^^^This

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk