New Classifier Percentages

[rowdyb]

25 minutes ago, ATLDave said:

 

But you'd also need to transmit the shooter's location, the target location, results of the shot, and (probably) the shooter's velocity (i.e., whether the shooter was static, moving slowly, moving at a dead run, etc.).  All this stuff is technologically possible, but would require vastly more effort and resources than we're ever likely to get.  

We should all wear fitbits haha and every target geotagged. Not really. 

[HoMiE]

1 hour ago, ATLDave said:

That is wrong, wrong, wrong.  That is the opposite of the truth.  

Check out Power-law distribution also called Paretian Distribution. 

[ATLDave]

I know what a power law distribution is.  Percentiles are perfectly useful in the context of that kind of curve.  And far better than picking either an arbitrary near-far-right point and calculating, for each individual, the fraction of that point.  

Edited September 21, 2018 by ATLDave

[StuckinMS]

I feel that back when all this was started there were far fewer professional fulltime shooters.  There are way more now than say 15-20 years ago.  Of course times are getting better, more people getting free bullets to play with would almost certainly drive scores up and times down.  I think "Pro" category would have been a more reasonable approach than to just raise expectations across the board for everyone.  I would be a lot better if I were getting free ammo also, would i be a Travis Tomasie or Max Michele, heck no. But I would definitely be better.   

[waktasz]

Those guys weren't C class shooters when they got their seven figure sponsorship deals. They had already put in work for years. 

 

[pjb45]

I made similar observations previously in this forum.  As for a little knowledge is ......

 

I have not only undergraduate but graduate hours in research methodology/statistics.  Add to that 6 years at government theoretical research center and 3 years in applied research.

 

BTW:  The data is the data.  It can be sliced and diced to meet the business requirements but the laws and rule still apply.  

 

In almost any IT practice, business requirements come first.  I have never seen the USPSA Business Requirement/Goals stated anywhere.  

[motosapiens]

37 minutes ago, pjb45 said:

In almost any IT practice, business requirements come first.  I have never seen the USPSA Business Requirement/Goals stated anywhere.  

 

yesssssss. he has the preciousssssss.

[motosapiens]

9 hours ago, ATLDave said:

 Percentiles are perfectly useful in the context of that kind of curve.  And far better than picking either an arbitrary near-far-right point and calculating, for each individual, the fraction of that point.  

He hassss the precioussssss alssssssso......

 

persssssssentilesssssss....... he isssss good at the mathsssssss....

[alexmg]

On 9/21/2018 at 11:44 AM, rowdyb said:

 if the timer picked up EVERY shot on the stage and the timer wirelessly transmitted the data. There would have to be an advance in the timers we use and interfacing them into data about the cof. Collecting the data in real time, at the range.

That is coming soon

[Nevadazielmeister]

On 9/21/2018 at 8:26 PM, pjb45 said:

In almost any IT practice, business requirements come first.  I have never seen the USPSA Business Requirement/Goals stated anywhere.  

 

Maybe because it isn't a business? 

 

"The United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) is the national governing body of practical shooting in the United States under the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC)...... USPSA is a 501c(3) non-profit Delaware corporation and currently headquartered in Burlington, Washington."

[B_RAD]

1 hour ago, Nevadazielmeister said:

 

Maybe because it isn't a business? 

 

"The United States Practical Shooting Association (USPSA) is the national governing body of practical shooting in the United States under the International Practical Shooting Confederation (IPSC)...... USPSA is a 501c(3) non-profit Delaware corporation and currently headquartered in Burlington, Washington."

My understanding of 501 tax exempt entities is that the c(3) designates/means that someone can donate and use that as a write off. 

 

If I'm correct, I'm surprised that's the case. That you can donate to USPSA  and write it off.  Which is making me think I'm incorrect in my understanding of 501's.

 

I know there's a lot of cost and stuff that goes unseen when it comes to running and paying for everything but it kinda feels like USPSA sure sells a lot of advertising space?  I guess (seriously) that the $40 membership isn't enough to cover operating cost. 

 

Anyways, back to the hhf update, I still think it wasn't the right solution. I'm still in the they should have added a pro category camp.  

 

Oh well..... 

Edited September 23, 2018 by B_RAD

[pjb45]

A non-profit corporation is not a business? 

 

It has revenue and expenses. 

It has staff. 

It has a President, Director, etc. 

It has a policy and procedure manual 

It has a legal standing and must file legal paperwork.

It has good and services which are exchanged for monetary instruments.

 

NOT a business is the dumbest conclusion I have heard this week but then it's only Monday.  Or maybe I misread the intent of the thread.

 

[Nevadazielmeister]

1 hour ago, pjb45 said:

A non-profit corporation is not a business? 

 

It has revenue and expenses. 

It has staff. 

It has a President, Director, etc. 

It has a policy and procedure manual 

It has a legal standing and must file legal paperwork.

It has good and services which are exchanged for monetary instruments.

 

NOT a business is the dumbest conclusion I have heard this week but then it's only Monday.  Or maybe I misread the intent of the thread.

 

 

 

Maybe try this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business which states "Business is the activity of making one's living or making money by producing or buying and selling products (goods and services).^[1][2][3][4] Simply put, it is "any activity or enterprise entered into for profit"

 

Or this https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/business which states "n. any activity or enterprise entered into for profit."

 

Or heck, why not Black's Law Dictionary which states "This word embraces everything about which a person can be employed. People v. Com’rs of Taxes, 23 N. Y. 242, 244. That which occupies the time, attention, and labor of men for the purpose of a livelihood or profit. The doing of a single act pertaining to a particular business will not be considered engaging in or carrying on the business; yet a series of such acts would be so considered. Goddard v. Chaffee, 2 Allen (Mass.) 305, 79 Am. Dec. 796; Sterne v. State, 20 Ala. 46. Labor, business, and work are not synonyms. Labor may be business, but it is not necessarily so; and business is not always labor. Making an agreement for the sale of a chattel is not within a prohibition of labor upon Sunday, though it is (if by a merchant in his calling) within a prohibition upon business. Bloom v. Richards, 2 Ohio St. 387."

 

USPSA does not profit from us. It is simply an organization without any shareholders, business owners, profit/loss statements or even goals. It simply is for the benefit of its members.

 

In my family, I have every bit of the above items you reference, but I am not a business onto myself nor am I a business onto others. I simply exist, as humble as it may be. Happy too, not going around ridiculing others, but I know little of such things. 

[pjb45]

Business does not have to be for profit.  There are not-for-profit businesses.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/business.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/business.html

An organization or economic system where goods and services are exchanged for one another or for money.
Every business requires some form of investment and enough customers to whom its output can be sold on a consistent basis in order to make a profit.  In this case Profit means revenues exceed costs.

 

A Nonprofit corporation is a special type of corporation that has been organized to meet specific tax-exempt purposes. To qualify for Nonprofit status, your corporation must be formed to benefit: (1) the public, (2) a specific group of individuals, or (3) the membership of the Nonprofit.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/business.html

[Nevadazielmeister]

7 minutes ago, pjb45 said:

Business does not have to be for profit.  There are not-for-profit businesses.

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/business.html

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/business.html

An organization or economic system where goods and services are exchanged for one another or for money.
Every business requires some form of investment and enough customers to whom its output can be sold on a consistent basis in order to make a profit.  In this case Profit means revenues exceed costs.

 

A Nonprofit corporation is a special type of corporation that has been organized to meet specific tax-exempt purposes. To qualify for Nonprofit status, your corporation must be formed to benefit: (1) the public, (2) a specific group of individuals, or (3) the membership of the Nonprofit.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/business.html

 

Thank you for providing references that just proves my point. 

[MemphisMechanic]

Wow. You gentleman took this topic off into a highly irrelevant left field.

[Nevadazielmeister]

Just now, MemphisMechanic said:

Wow. You gentleman took this topic off into a highly irrelevant left field.

 

Ha ha ha.. yeh, sometimes that happens. 

[pjb45]

Seriously,  USPSA is a business by any definition.  What I provided support that assertion.

 

I invoke the Gman Bart Corollary

[cferree]

I like the thinking/discussion that these changes have created (I don't agree with how the changes were made, not sure if I agree with them at all).

I'm no expert in statistics, but with two BS's in Engineering, I've taken at least 3 (may be 4) Stat classes.  I'm guessing it hasn't changed since the late '80's early '90's.  So I understand most of the data presented.

 

I'd like ask for the forum's thoughts on the classifiers themselves.  Many people have taken the time to collect classification vs match performance data.  Thanks, I enjoyed reviewing it.  To me, the data shows that classification percentage doesn't always equate to match performance (by percentage).  I believe this is because the classifiers don't represent the game we play in the twenty-teens.  They did in the '90's when I started, but to me, not now.  Box to box shooting, specified reloads and SH/WH shooting was the game in the '80's and early '90's.  It's not now, and that a good thing.  Throw in multiple re-shoots of classifiers, and the data becomes more skewed.

 

I quick glance showed 8 stages that represent today's game (I didn't count sitting/table starts).  

So, do the classifiers we're shooting now do what they were originally intended to do, i.e. give competitors a way to handicap their current match ability using the best in their division as a reference?  If they don't, then are the changes in the HHF relevant?

Edited September 27, 2018 by cferree

[BritinUSA]

I started around 1992 in the UK, stages at our larger matches were much the same as we shoot in USA, though there were more of a mix; A typical classifier match would have 3-4 large stages and the rest would be small/medium courses that tasted just about every aspect of the sport. In the UK we had around 20+ matches each year that counted as classifiers (I think there were rated as Level 2). The percentage from each match was used to calculate a person's classification using the best 4 of five scores. If the competitor shot 10 matches then their best 8 scores would count.

 

It worked mostly because UK is a small country and most everywhere can be reached within a days drive, so most of the top shooters would be at every one of them. In a larger country it might not fair so well.

 

While I agree that the average classifier does not truly represent the sport there are many other aspects that affect a persons score on classifiers versus their performance at Nationals.

 

Many classifiers have been shot multiple times, whereas every stage at Nationals is shot only once.

Screwing up a classifier at a local match has zero impact, doing the same on a stage at Nationals and you could wind up with a bore-snake instead of a prize-gun.

 

Personally, I think the only value in the classification system is its ability to generate revenue.

[motosapiens]

2 hours ago, cferree said:

I'd like ask for the forum's thoughts on the classifiers themselves.  Many people have taken the time to collect classification vs match performance data.  Thanks, I enjoyed reviewing it.  To me, the data shows that classification percentage doesn't always equate to match performance (by percentage).  I

 

i'm not expert on stats, although applied math and stats was my college major. It looks to me like classification shows a pretty tight correlation to match finish, and the outliers generally fall into one of the following buckets:

a). up and coming shooters whose classification hasn't caught up with their actual skill level, but will in a few more months.

b). old fat slow guys who used to be good.

c). gun disasters.

d). grandbaggers who shoot a classifier 198374 times until they get a gm score after 198373 c and d scores.

 

we all know who most of those people are.

 

The changes in classification will upset this apple cart slightly, in that it will make group A bigger, because it will make it substantially harder to upclass in divisions that have had actual participation for a while (i.e., it will still be easy in carry optics).

Edited September 27, 2018 by motosapiens

[stick]

6 hours ago, BritinUSA said:

 

Many classifiers have been shot multiple times, whereas every stage at Nationals is shot only once.

Screwing up a classifier at a local match has zero impact, doing the same on a stage at Nationals and you could wind up with a bore-snake instead of a prize-gun.

 

Personally, I think the only value in the classification system is its ability to generate revenue.

I strongly believe what you said is true for roughly 90% of shooters.  Classifiers are seen daily by shooters.  Nationals only yearly.  The classification system is a revenue generating stream.  I think the classification system is skewed.  Here's why...

How many shooters both male and female can shoot fast and accurate while standing still?  I'm going to guess in your time shooting, you've seen your fair share. (as have i) They shoot classifiers very well, but when it come to matches, they place low on the leaderboard.  USPSA in it's scoring as we all know (points divided by time) rewards the fleet of foot, not the shooter standing and shooting.  This is why we have a big problem with GM's not scoring 95% at nationals.  USPSA needs to go to a classification system that utilizes set stages and not just static shooting.  All factors should be considered into classifications not just how fast I can stand and shoot.  What are your thoughts?

[B_RAD]

Wait until the new classifiers at nationals get approved for use next year. The only runs that set the hhf will be from runs at nationals. Folks will be going for max points not making the next classification.  I imagine those classifiers will have a lower hhf than typical ones now.

 

In my mind, that should tell you something. They way they updated the current ones is not the way it should have been done.

 

Just my $0.02! 

[Nathanb]

Right. I just can’t see someone coming out and setting a hhf that’s going to stand. Gonna inflate some scores. 

[Racinready300ex]

55 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

Wait until the new classifiers at nationals get approved for use next year. The only runs that set the hhf will be from runs at nationals. Folks will be going for max points not making the next classification.  I imagine those classifiers will have a lower hhf than typical ones now.

 

In my mind, that should tell you something. They way they updated the current ones is not the way it should have been done.

 

Just my $0.02! 

 

What should it tell us? I assume you mean the current HHF are to high?

 

But, I bet I can shoot a better HF more consistently at my local club match then I could if I went to nationals and shot the same stage. Shooters are also more likely to risk pushing a little at a local then at a big match like nationals. But, I guess the top guys probably don't feel pressure or play it safe when the title is on the line. I'm sure their scores will be a accurate representation of the best they can do.