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

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


Paulie

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Seems when Foley talked about this a while ago he said most hadn't been adjusted in a election cycle or two.

 

IIRC he said they would be based on actual scores shot with some unspecified adjustment for outliers. Not everyone liked his lack of detail. Can't recall FB or the DP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

The High Hit Factors have needed updated for a LONG time. If the proverbial "bar" is now higher that is a good thing.

 

My only beef with the classification system is how they poach existing division High Hit Factors for new divisions. Like most of the PCC High Hit Factors were based on Open which is a complete joke for many of the classifiers. This is why we see a flood of M/GM PCC shooters that would struggle to make A class in any pistol division.

 

Guess PCC GM is my only ticket to M in limited. 

 

Kidding! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Paulie said:

 

Guess PCC GM is my only ticket to M in limited. 

 

Kidding! 

That is the exact problem. There are many "Paper M's" generated in Pistol divisions because the PCC high hit factors were WAY easy and people were getting GM classifications in PCC easily. All this does is dilute the value of pistol classifications. Hopefully these excessively easy PCC high hit factor classifiers have been fixed in this latest update.

 

USPSA shouldn't link PCC classification to Pistol divisions. Or any provisional division for that matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, CHA-LEE said:

That is the exact problem. There are many "Paper M's" generated in Pistol divisions because the PCC high hit factors were WAY easy and people were getting GM classifications in PCC easily. All this does is dilute the value of pistol classifications. Hopefully these excessively easy PCC high hit factor classifiers have been fixed in this latest update.

 

USPSA shouldn't link PCC classification to Pistol divisions. Or any provisional division for that matter.

I haven’t looked myself, but the internet seems to think the pcc issue wasn’t resolved. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you think that USPSA should recalculate the classifications for CO and PCC, ie. make the changes retroactive for these new divisions? If they don’t then there will be a lot of paper GM’s (especially in PCC) for years to come.

 

i think they should definitely unlink rifle and pistol divisions, classification level in one should have no impact on the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, BritinUSA said:

Do you think that USPSA should recalculate the classifications for CO and PCC, ie. make the changes retroactive for these new divisions? If they don’t then there will be a lot of paper GM’s (especially in PCC) for years to come.

 

i think they should definitely unlink rifle and pistol divisions, classification level in one should have no impact on the other.

 

I think they should recalculate all of them based on the magnatude of some of the numbers I’m seeing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think they should make any scoring changes retroactive. I know there'd be a lot of butt hurt but do you really want to be an A classification sitting at 55%?

 

I personally think they went a little far with some of the increases. Did we really have the big of a problem with people classifing higher than they could shoot?  There's always gonna be that overlapping area of talent vs classification.  So, it'll just be one classification lower now. 

 

In the end, I really don't care though. Not gonna affect the placement in match. People still gonna fall out in the ranking the same. just have a different letter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

I think they should make any scoring changes retroactive. I know there'd be a lot of butt hurt but do you really want to be an A classification sitting at 55%?

 

I personally think they went a little far with some of the increases. Did we really have the big of a problem with people classifing higher than they could shoot?  There's always gonna be that overlapping area of talent vs classification.  So, it'll just be one classification lower now. 

 

In the end, I really don't care though. Not gonna affect the placement in match. People still gonna fall out in the ranking the same. just have a different letter. 

 

Ultimately there will always be “paper ___’s” no matter how much they increase the HHF because the classifier has little to do with actually being competitive in USPSA. So this bump feels like a solution searching for a problem. 

 

Don’t get me wrong- absent making level II placement the only way to classify, it’s a pretty good system. Ours is superior to the  “5x5” IDPA classifier where 5 draws / 25 static shots in 20 seconds from 10 yards makes a master. 

 

They should have caught up more slowly over some period of time and then programmed a logical inflationary path for the future. Most non-GM’s would probably agree :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Paulie said:

 

Ultimately there will always be “paper ___’s” no matter how much they increase the HHF because the classifier has little to do with actually being competitive in USPSA. So this bump feels like a solution searching for a problem. 

 

Don’t get me wrong- absent making level II placement the only way to classify, it’s a pretty good system. Ours is superior to the  “5x5” IDPA classifier where 5 draws / 25 static shots in 20 seconds from 10 yards makes a master. 

 

They should have caught up more slowly over some period of time and then programmed a logical inflationary path for the future. Most non-GM’s would probably agree :) 

IDPA master used to be equal to B class USPSA.  Now it's gonna be C class. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Flatland Shooter said:

Too bad they didn't give a 30 day notice.  If they did, there would be a whole lot of "all classifier" matches in July.

 

My next match happens to be a classifier match. First one ever for me...was all pumped up and hoping to crack low 70’s. Maybe I should withdraw and quit while I’m behind! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

Thanks.. my percentage dropped 2.36%

 

Probably because they included a new score from a match you shot in the last week or two, right? 

Mine didn't change because I didn't shoot a match last week, even though if I use the calculator on my existing scores they would have dropped. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

40 minutes ago, HoMiE said:

I had a couple go down but a couple went up. Shot Can you count classifier at 86% in PCC, same HF now shows it at 92%. 

One of us isn't doing the math correctly. I had an 86% on the same one. It did not go to 90%. It went to 80%!

 

ETA: scratch that.  I'm looking at production. So, PCC the division already too easy to make GM, is now even easier?   Ha ha. 

Edited by B_RAD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Paulie said:

 

My next match happens to be a classifier match. First one ever for me...was all pumped up and hoping to crack low 70’s. Maybe I should withdraw and quit while I’m behind! 

 

The three clubs nearest me run classifier matches in August. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, B_RAD said:

I think they should make any scoring changes retroactive. I know there'd be a lot of butt hurt but do you really want to be an A classification sitting at 55%?

 

I don't think the changes are that drastic below GM scores. My "B" classifier scores averaged out to be 4.6% lower after I recalculated them. Most dropped between 3 to 9% after a careful look and one went up by 3%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, tanks said:

 

I don't think the changes are that drastic below GM scores. My "B" classifier scores averaged out to be 4.6% lower after I recalculated them. Most dropped between 3 to 9% after a careful look and one went up by 3%.

If that's the case, I think that's a good move. People in C class shouldn't be hit as hard as folks in M class!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine dropped 9%. To go from 3% away from GM to the top of A class seems like a huge punch. At the thin end of the curve to overnight ask me to be 10-12% better now to make my goal just seems ridic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is, as it is a percentage. If top end of a classifier goes up by 10% then C class should be impacted by 4 - 6 percent. Now, some classifiers increase more, and others the HHF actually went down (at least on one of mine).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, rowdyb said:

Mine dropped 9%. To go from 3% away from GM to the top of A class seems like a huge punch. At the thin end of the curve to overnight ask me to be 10-12% better now to make my goal just seems ridic.

 

Well, you could just shoot 95%+ at Nationals and get a match bump. ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m about half way through a comparison of limited HHF changes, which I’ll post here tomorrow. 

 

Pucker factor more worthy of its name now.....get ready for this. HHF increased 18%. 

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...