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

[Matt1]

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 said on another forum in a thread on the same topic (maybe it was this one. Seems to be a popular topic this week) that I just made Master in PD (in IPSC) but I’m not really that excited about it because it was a match bump against a good (but not top) shooter.

I won’t feel happy until I can do this against the #1 guy in my country. “Paper” grades are meaningless


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tanks]

7 hours ago, Matt1 said:

 

I said on another forum in a thread on the same topic (maybe it was this one. Seems to be a popular topic this week) that I just made Master in PD (in IPSC) but I’m not really that excited about it because it was a match bump against a good (but not top) shooter.

I won’t feel happy until I can do this against the #1 guy in my country. “Paper” grades are meaningless
...

 

 

Well, our #1 guy at Last Nationals also happens to be #1 in the World in Production, there was only one person within 95% of him.  Using that standard, GM percentage would be 0.87%.

 

You also brought up a good point in regards to match bumps, it depends on the competition. A Canadian friend of mine is an IPSC GM based on his major match results in Canada. In the USPSA he is B class in classifiers and his major match results in the US are within that range as well. The competition is just not there in Canada.

 

The "paper" grades are supposed to measure everyone universally against a Standard in the skill set. Does it translate to match performance? I think it gets people close, especially at lower levels. Last 4 level II and above matches I shot my class at the time including the Nationals. At higher levels (M, GM) it might not translate as well as movement, physical and mental fitness and stage planning are not measured in classifiers. Not to mention that there are no moving targets in classifiers.

 

Maybe another method could be a combination, a two tiered method. One would have their classifications up to A be through classifications only, but for M and GM would have to hit M and GM level scores in Level 2 and above matches AFTER making M and GM scores in classifiers. The 5% above one's classification match bump rule would still apply.

[AmarokTactical]

Here are the changes made to the Carry Optics classifier HHF's - most of them have been balanced to be easier. I compiled these myself so there may be some errors, let me know if you see anything that needs changing.

Edited July 3, 2018 by AmarokTactical

[Flatland Shooter]

11 hours ago, AmarokTactical said:

Here are the changes made to the Carry Optics classifier HHF's - most of them have been balanced to be easier. I compiled these myself so there may be some errors, let me know if you see anything that needs changing.

 

 

Just curios where you found all this data.  I'd like to do the same comparison for PCC but the old data is gone.

[AmarokTactical]

21 minutes ago, Flatland Shooter said:

 

Just curios where you found all this data.  I'd like to do the same comparison for PCC but the old data is gone.

I used AZS Calc for the old HHF's, they haven't updated their info yet. The calculator on the USPSA site is pretty garbage and will lock you out after about 15-20 queries and you'll have to wait an hour. I wish they would just publish the information in an easy to read format. They don't even tell you HHF, just what 95% is so you have to do the math to figure out the new HHF's. 

[Flatland Shooter]

16 minutes ago, AmarokTactical said:

I used AZS Calc for the old HHF's, they haven't updated their info yet. The calculator on the USPSA site is pretty garbage and will lock you out after about 15-20 queries and you'll have to wait an hour. I wish they would just publish the information in an easy to read format. They don't even tell you HHF, just what 95% is so you have to do the math to figure out the new HHF's. 

 

Thanks.

Now I have a 4th of July project.

[Norther]

Well, I think it’s good they did this. I wish it was retroactive. If my percentage drops a class, I don’t want to be competing in a higher class than where I really belong. 

 

That said, I had to go take a look at my classifiers. Most of mine are legacy, so the hit factors don’t show, so I only used the more recent ones that are used for classification. Of those 11, only 3 would go down with the new hhf.  My recent PCC initial classification would go up 4.7%  with the new numbers.  I guess I’m not really concerned with this. 

 

I do wish it was retroactive though. 

[Paulie]

Anyone know when the next summary of headcount by class and division will be published?

 

Latest I’ve seen is 2015...

[AmarokTactical]

2 hours ago, Paulie said:

Anyone know when the next summary of headcount by class and division will be published?

 

Latest I’ve seen is 2015...

I'd love to see this too, I'd like to see where I sit in terms of the other competitors out there. 

[malobukov]

2 hours ago, Paulie said:

Anyone know when the next summary of headcount by class and division will be published?

 

Latest I’ve seen is 2015...

Here's how the distribution by class looks in Production now:

 

GM    1.9%
M    5.1%
A    7.7%
B    18.2%
C    25.4%
D    9.2%
U    32.5%

Those are not official total numbers, just aggregation of recent matches.

[IHAVEGAS]

2 minutes ago, malobukov said:

 

Those are not official total numbers, just aggregation of recent matches.

 

I doubt if there is much correlation. 

[2011BLDR]

On 6/28/2018 at 3:19 PM, MemphisMechanic said:

 

 

A lot of Production shooters are going to begin putting together PCCs this week...  

 

Not a good idea PCC got a lot harder, I was at 93.1275% my six redon on the new HHF puts me down to 78.8763%

09-14 100% is now 70.1513%

09-02 100% is now 80.6327%

09-09 86.6667% is now 87.6404% ( only one that went up)

08-03 100% is now 84.4231%

99-62 86.5676 is now 83.3303%

06-05 85.5306% is now 67.0800%

[Flatland Shooter]

1 hour ago, 2011BLDR said:

Not a good idea PCC got a lot harder, I was at 93.1275% my six redon on the new HHF puts me down to 78.8763%

09-14 100% is now 70.1513%

09-02 100% is now 80.6327%

09-09 86.6667% is now 87.6404% ( only one that went up)

08-03 100% is now 84.4231%

99-62 86.5676 is now 83.3303%

06-05 85.5306% is now 67.0800%

 

What these classifiers show is that the HHF that jumped a bunch are those that the pistol shooters had to turn and draw.  We PCC shooters could pick up a 1/2 second on them right there so the change is no surprise.

 

The one that the HHF went down included a mandatory reload.  Again, no surprise. 

 

I reviewed my classifier scores back through last Summer.  In late Summer and early Fall I shot a few classifiers that included reloads.  If we were using the new HHF back then, I would have had my last bump in class a few months earlier than I did.

[2011BLDR]

58 minutes ago, Flatland Shooter said:

 

What these classifiers show is that the HHF that jumped a bunch are those that the pistol shooters had to turn and draw.  We PCC shooters could pick up a 1/2 second on them right there so the change is no surprise.

 

The one that the HHF went down included a mandatory reload.  Again, no surprise. 

 

I reviewed my classifier scores back through last Summer.  In late Summer and early Fall I shot a few classifiers that included reloads.  If we were using the new HHF back then, I would have had my last bump in class a few months earlier than I did.

No I disagree on each one of the listed 100% their were an open, a limited  and a production GM, M and A shooters that also did the same or better time on the stages including the turn and draw.. they we well above the old 100% in the respective division..the stock in belt start position is equal to a turn and draw in what I saw in the classifiers

[2011BLDR]

If this was a 1-5% adjustment it would be one thing... but I have seen up to 25% in some of the data from this thread.. to me that is a total invaladation of the system and I want yo have all of my old data dumped and be reset to zero unclassified  in all divisions... I will reclas under the new system in the divisions I will shoot now.. shut it is only 28 years of shooting  with USPSA so far  should only be 4 months to reclass in the 2 divisions I will still shoot in as an old guy 

[MikeBurgess]

If this was a 1-5% adjustment it would be one thing... but I have seen up to 25% in some of the data from this thread.. to me that is a total invaladation of the system and I want yo have all of my old data dumped and be reset to zero unclassified  in all divisions... I will reclas under the new system in the divisions I will shoot now.. shut it is only 28 years of shooting  with USPSA so far  should only be 4 months to reclass in the 2 divisions I will still shoot in as an old guy 

Just keep shooting and petition to have your classification dropped to match your skill.level as shown by your inability to shoot at your current classification.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[2011BLDR]

IMO the petition process doesn't apply .. I see nothing in the bylaws that cover the invaladation of the clasifacation system .. the actions taken are outside of  the bylaws.. I welcome a zero reset in all divisions 

[MikeBurgess]

IMO the petition process doesn't apply .. I see nothing in the bylaws that cover the invaladation of the clasifacation system .. the actions taken are outside of  the bylaws.. I welcome a zero reset in all divisions 

How has the classification system been invalidated?
Seems to me the use of actual data in adjusting the HHF validates it

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

[2011BLDR]

3 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

How has the classification system been invalidated?
Seems to me the use of actual data in adjusting the HHF validates it

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
 

I agree on that,  so that makes the old scores and classifications Invalid. Old scores are not the same value post 6/28/18 as they were on 6/27/18.  look at the data posted in this thread and you can see a 25% swing both up and down ( 50% total ). 

[MikeBurgess]

34 minutes ago, 2011BLDR said:

I agree on that,  so that makes the old scores and classifications Invalid. Old scores are not the same value post 6/28/18 as they were on 6/27/18.  look at the data posted in this thread and you can see a 25% swing both up and down ( 50% total ). 

So just to be clear you contend the Org should invalidate all old scores rather than follow their published procedure. Yes they took too longer between adjustments than would seem prudent, but it seems that the procedure was followed.

 

From the Classification Course Book  (NCCB_4.1_2016)

 

Hit Factors and Maximum Hit Factors
Members are awarded a class based on a series of
percentages that are calculated for them. Each percentage
is the score (hit factor) they shoot on a specific stage
divided by the maximum hit factor used for that stage.
The maximum hit factors are derived from the scores of
the top shooters. Since these top shooters can, and
sometimes do, make changes in their equipment or
technique, the maximum hit factors need to changed as
well. For instance, a member’s hit factor of 5.64 on a
given stage may represent 63 percent of the stage
maximum at the time it is entered, but some time later may
represent only 59 percent if the top shooters have forced
a change in the stage maximum. The member’s score will
remain as entered as it is not possible for the staff to
recalculate every member’s hit factor for the stages that
have changed, but all subsequent scores will be calculated
based on the new maximum hit factor.

[MikeBurgess]

To be moved down just shoot 8 classifiers and petition to be moved down.

 

From the rule book

To go down in class you must: 1) request in writing to be moved down, citing your reasons and justification; 2) have a club president or SC concur with your request in writing; and 3) have no current scores on record that indicate you should remain in your assigned class.

 

[2011BLDR]

23 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

3) have no current scores on record that indicate you should remain in your assigned class.

 

higher scores calculated under the old HHF's prior to 6/28/18 will never drop off of your %  as any re-shoots under the New HHF will receive a D by the system. Any new classifiers not already in your pool calculated under the new HHF's will get a B or C code and wont be used. 

They raised the bar by 25% to me that makes any score prior to 6/28/18 invalid.. I understand it needed to be done however why should I as a member who pays USPSA to maintain the classification system suffer with being over classed based on invalid data due to their mismanagement of the system we pay them for?

I want a total classification wipe to zero ( Unclassifed).  I will re-class under the post 6/28/18 HHF's without that the classification system is a totally useless tool for me that I continue to pay for. I see you joined hear in 2016 have no idea how long you have been shooting USPSA,   I have been an active USPSA shooter since 1993 the classification system is a tool I have used since day 1 but without a reset to zero it is useless to me based on the rules governing the data currently in the system ( that is now wrong) and new data coming in.

[HoMiE]

18 hours ago, 2011BLDR said:

Not a good idea PCC got a lot harder, I was at 93.1275% my six redon on the new HHF puts me down to 78.8763%

09-14 100% is now 70.1513%

09-02 100% is now 80.6327%

09-09 86.6667% is now 87.6404% ( only one that went up)

08-03 100% is now 84.4231%

99-62 86.5676 is now 83.3303%

06-05 85.5306% is now 67.0800%

 

Looking at your 100%...

09-14 no uprange start for PCC

09-02 stronghand same for PCC

08-03 no uprange start for PCC

 

did PCC get harder or did you just shoot at your level?

 

 

 

[2011BLDR]

18 minutes ago, HoMiE said:

 

Looking at your 100%...

09-14 no uprange start for PCC

09-02 stronghand same for PCC

08-03 no uprange start for PCC

 

did PCC get harder or did you just shoot at your level?

 

 

 

neither.. Initial PCC HHF's were pulled out of thin air, based on no data and with no understanding of how a PCC has  different strengths and weakness than than a pistol...  

[HoMiE]

3 minutes ago, 2011BLDR said:

neither.. Initial PCC HHF's were pulled out of thin air, based on no data and with no understanding of how a PCC has  different strengths and weakness than than a pistol...  

My understanding is PCC HHF were based on Open HHF. 

 

As as it’s already been stated, if you think your classification is too high, you have a process to have it brought back down.