New Classifier Percentages

[B585]

Can someone please explain why USPSA recently (6-28-18) felt the need to make such drastic changes to the Classifier percentages?  I get that some of the newer division (PCC and CO) still need data analyzed, but in Limited for example, there is 12% drop in score on 6-28-18 or later compared to the week before on the Classifier I shot this weekend...ie what would have been a 69% has dropped to 57%.  Limited division has been around since the early 1990s and the rules haven't changed to the best of my knowledge so how can it be that different?  I have heard the same thing has happened with Open (I haven't checked that because I don't shoot Open).

[Racinready300ex]

The HHF's havn't changed in a long time, and didn't accurately reflect 100%. The bar is higher now at matches, so for the classification to work properly it needs to reflect what people are currently capable of. So the bar needed to be raised on the classifiers too. Simple right?

 

This is really something they should do from time to time. The fact that it was never done is why some classifiers were easy and some were very difficult or impossible. I guess time will tell if this is better or not.

[SCTaylor]

I think it will be better as a whole, classifying folks where they really belong.

 

It is frustrating due to my current classification compared to where I want to be. It just makes it harder; oh well, I've got to work harder.

[B585]

6 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

The HHF's havn't changed in a long time, and didn't accurately reflect 100%. The bar is higher now at matches, so for the classification to work properly it needs to reflect what people are currently capable of. So the bar needed to be raised on the classifiers too. Simple right?

 

This is really something they should do from time to time. The fact that it was never done is why some classifiers were easy and some were very difficult or impossible. I guess time will tell if this is better or not.

I checked 6 different Classifiers (random selection) and 5 of them had a double digit change.  I am having trouble wrapping my head around that one.  Thanks for your response because at least this gives me an idea of the theory behind it.

[B585]

My

4 minutes ago, SCTaylor said:

I think it will be better as a whole, classifying folks where they really belong.

 

It is frustrating due to my current classification compared to where I want to be. It just makes it harder; oh well, I've got to work harder.

Very frustrating....I have been working hard to move up.  Had I shot the previous weekend what I did this past Saturday, I would have met my goal.  As it turns, my score will actually drop instead of moving up.

[OPENB]

But now it's a truer representation of what you are actually able to do on demand. I know it sucks, but these youngins' are just getting better all the time. I'm wondering when I'll petition to have my classification dropped down. Probably sooner than later.

[ChuckS]

Don't feel bad! At one time it was said that 10 seconds was a s#!t-hot score on the El Prez

 

Folks have gotten gooder...

 

 

Lively discussion here:

 

 

[B585]

58 minutes ago, OPENB said:

But now it's a truer representation of what you are actually able to do on demand. I know it sucks, but these youngins' are just getting better all the time. I'm wondering when I'll petition to have my classification dropped down. Probably sooner than later.

 

IMHO it is not an accurate representation no matter which numbers they are using.  Unless you are a D, bad Classifiers are thrown out (5% less than your current ranking).  That promotes spray and pray.  If you get lucky and hook up, you get a great score.  If you do poorly because you shot too fast, then it doesn't count..

[Chills1994]

Soooo....when is the actual classifier HHF + ...the record holder's page going to be live on the website?

 

[SCTaylor]

25 minutes ago, B585 said:

 

IMHO it is not an accurate representation no matter which numbers they are using.  Unless you are a D, bad Classifiers are thrown out (5% less than your current ranking).  That promotes spray and pray.  If you get lucky and hook up, you get a great score.  If you do poorly because you shot too fast, then it doesn't count..

 

Then you'll grandbag into a classification which you are not competitive. No way to change that unless they count every single classifier.

[B585]

1 hour ago, SCTaylor said:

 

Then you'll grandbag into a classification which you are not competitive. No way to change that unless they count every single classifier.

6 out of 8 but no throw outs because of poor performance.  I have been told to that from GMs to Cs since I first started USPSA.  At least at a lot of local matches, that's what many of them do.  Maybe people see it differently at different places.

[B_RAD]

2 hours ago, SCTaylor said:

 

Then you'll grandbag into a classification which you are not competitive. No way to change that unless they count every single classifier.

Everyone knows the classification system is one thing and the outcome at major matches is another. Trying to make one correspond with the other doesn't make sense. To me at least. 

 

I'm seeing no discrepancies between classification and overall performance at LV2 and below. LV3 is where the gap starts to grow. At Nationals I see a big gap. Look at all the top level shooters form last year's prod nats. One GM, the only person, shot within GM percentage of the winner. So, even the top level shooters aren't always hitting 95% at Nats. 

 

IMO there's no issue there. All the supper squad level GM's are legit and could still hit a GM classification with the new hhfs, yet they don't always end up above 95% at majors.

 

In my opinion the supper squad level shooters are an entire level above the true GM level. Take the top shooters out and the results are back to what level 3 and below. 

 

That's why I think updating the hhf was not needed. Especially, since we know very little on how they did it.  If there's an issue of GM's only shooting 85% at nats because of the top guy being a whole level above,  maybe they should have made another level at the top? As much as it sounds like idpa, it may not have been a bad idea. 

 

If you've been working hard to get out of C class and now your really shooting at the top of D per the new numbers, it's gonna be difficult to not be discouraged. 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 2, 2018 by B_RAD

[IHAVEGAS]

4 hours ago, B585 said:

Can someone please explain why USPSA recently (6-28-18) felt the need to make such drastic changes to the Classifier percentages? 

 

I think it is a plot to make old B class people who suck at competing against young B class people start to suck at competing against young C class people too. 

 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 

 

Either that or it is a diversion so people quit bitching about pcc. 

 

Or they are trying to make C class equivalent to IDPA master. 

[B585]

11 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

"In my opinion the supper squad level shooters are an entire level above the true GM level. Take the top shooters out and the results are back to what level 3 and below. 

 

That's why I think updating the hhf was not needed. Especially, since we know very little on how they did it.  If there's an issue of GM's only shooting 85% at nats because of the top guy being a whole level above,  maybe they should have made another level at the top? As much as it sounds like idpa, it may not have been a bad idea. 

 

If you've been working hard to get out of C class and now your really shooting at the top of D per the new numbers, it's gonna be difficult to not be discouraged." 

 

 

I think you hit the nail on the head.  Some of the top guys on my squad were saying that very thing (the ones who shoot Level 2, Level 3/Nationals but are not elite [super squad]).  They were talking about how big of a gap there was between our local GMs and those super squad.   

 

 

 

[Racinready300ex]

3 hours ago, B585 said:

 

IMHO it is not an accurate representation no matter which numbers they are using.  Unless you are a D, bad Classifiers are thrown out (5% less than your current ranking).  That promotes spray and pray.  If you get lucky and hook up, you get a great score.  If you do poorly because you shot too fast, then it doesn't count..

 

I don't know if this is really true. Sure I hear guys talking about going hero or zero mode. But, I've found that as I've gotten higher and get close to going up a classification I can mess up a run and still get a score that counts.

 

I shot one a few months ago that I dropped my mag on the reload, grabbed another one off my belt and kept going. Still hit 97%. The HHF on that stage was clearly to low.

[B585]

4 hours ago, ChuckS said:

Don't feel bad! At one time it was said that 10 seconds was a s#!t-hot score on the El Prez

 

Folks have gotten gooder...

 

 

Lively discussion here:

 

 

Thanks, I missed that earlier and wasn't aware of this thread.

[rowdyb]

from the other thread:

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

[stick]

I have a 5 stage classifier match Sunday.  I'm anxious to see how i do with the new HHF.

[rowdyb]

about 9% less than you would have done two weeks ago probably.

[OdinIII]

What problem was the update intended to fix?

 

I don’t know.

 

Sadly I think this is just another in a long line of decisions that are made with good intentions but poorly executed.

 

I don’t understand the logic of using the very best scores. I thought the classification system should tell you where you rank among other shooters. To me this means what they can reasonably do consistently on a given stage, not how high they can score when the stars align with a “burn it down” hero or zero attitude. I would love to look through the data, maybe there isn’t as large a gap as I suspect between what I would call typical stage performance and classifier performance.

 

[Flatland Shooter]

1 hour ago, rowdyb said:

about 9% less than you would have done two weeks ago probably.

 

Unless you are shooting PCC and the classifiers include a mandatory reload.

 

The few I checked all has lower HHFs.

[IHAVEGAS]

11 hours ago, rowdyb said:

 

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

 

I'm just getting started  . 

 

If they want to move the entire membership down a class so we will all end up on a level playing field eventually and not be competing at matches as a either legitimate class "x" or a legacy scoring class "x" or both, then nobody is hurt. Else, the fact they pulled your football now should work greatly to your advantage on class finishes until you get the extra work in to belong in the new higher classification. 

 

 

[Racinready300ex]

12 hours ago, rowdyb said:

from the other thread:

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

 

I'm not sure what the goal was, you'd really need to ask the BOD. My understanding of our system is that 100% is supposed to be what the best guys can shoot these skill tests in. If the best guys can shoot them better now then they could what the classifier was first implemented then shouldn't it be adjusted? Does it make sense to have some classifiers that even the best shooters can't get 100% while at the same time having some that they can shoot 130% on?

 

[B585]

13 hours ago, rowdyb said:

from the other thread:

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

 

Thanks for posting.  I am sure there are a number of good shooters on this thread, but I have seen some of your videos so I know you are a h#ll of a shooter.  I am working hard to improve but by no means at your level.  It is nice to see (for a less skilled shooter like myself who is trying to work my way up) that I am not the only one who has significant disagreements with how this was enacted.  It sounds like you, just like me, made it goal to move up in your classification.  I am sure that you, like me, have put in countless hours trying to make that goal.  It sounds like you, like me, are very frustrated that you may not meet that goal in time frame you allotted, not because you didn't improve, but only because you didn't get enough classifiers in by 6-28-18.  I shot an all Classifier match this past weekend that I had been looking forward to for months (when I first learned about it).  Based on the "old" classifications, I met that goal.  Based on the new classifications, my overall percentage went down.  THAT IS FRUSTRATING!!!

 

At least in my division (Limited), if you really want to know what a person's "true" classification is, there should be an asterisk beside their classification to indicate if they achieved that classification pre- or post- 6-28-18. 

 

As you said, I am done being mad about this...simply because I can't change it and I need to focus on improvement again.  I can say that if new organization comes out with a format similar to USPSA which attracts great shooters, I will have no problems leaving USPSA after this.  If the data was so wrong that we were using, it should have been corrected over time (maybe a 1/4 of the change per year for 4 years) or something similar...not a 10 to 12% in one day...that's just my humble opinion.

 

 

[MikeBurgess]

Everyone seems to be acting as if the only classifiers that mattered were the ones with comparatively low High Hit Factors. 

 

When you look at the classifiers as a whole most were adjusted, some were discontinued, the adjustments went both ways, I bet if they adjusted the long range standards that got dropped the average adjustment would have been basically nill, but because several of the classifiers that would have been adjusted down the most were dropped instead the average adjustment went up. 

 

 

Now what all this math means is if your MD only ran classifiers that got adjusted up then its going to be much harder for you, but if your MD ran a full spectrum of classifiers it probably wont affect you that much, but you will likely have much smaller swings in your classification percentages. 

 

I bet when we look back on this in a year or two we will find that shooters move from D to C and C to B and B to A just fine because the window of acceptable scores in those classifications is so large the range of classifier HHF all counted either for or against them.  I think getting from A to M and M to GM will probably be harder because classifications have smaller acceptable score windows so any classifiers with a high HHF ended up too low to count.