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

New Classifier Percentages


B585

Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

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. 

 

 

I shot 6 classifiers on Saturday.  All of them went up and most were in double digits.  I don't pick the Classifiers the clubs I shot at chose to have, nor do I know what the Classifier will be prior to getting to the match.  At least in Limited, I have not seen any go down.  I would be willing to bet that there will be a lot less people moving up from D to C, C to B, B to A, A to M, and M to GM this year after 6-28-18.  On 6-27-18 if a person was a 55%, on 6-29-18 they became about a 45%.  That's a lot longer hill to climb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 335
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 hours ago, B585 said:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

I don't know your classification, but a lot of B class shooters have made master in IDPA. If your goal is simply getting to the highest classification, I'd consider shooting some IDPA from time to time. I always here USPSA shooters brag about how much higher the bar is compared to IDPA. But, maybe IDPA is on to something.

 

The idea of our system is the HHF is supposed to be based on what the top shooters can do. If the top shooters can shoot better than the HHF on a classifier and we keep the HHF low anyway, then we are diminishing the meaning of our entire classification system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, B585 said:

.  On 6-27-18 if a person was a 55%, on 6-29-18 they became about a 45%.  That's a lot longer hill to climb.

 

The scores are not changing retroactively.  It is only going forward we will see the change.  None of my classifiers are different from 2 weeks ago. 

 

Yes it will be harder going forward, but no recorded classifiers prior to 6.27.18 are changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone keeps saying it will be harder going forward yes and no.

 

The easy classifiers will be harder.

The medium classifiers will be the same (or very close to it)

The hard classifiers will be easier. 

The impossible classifiers do not exist anymore.

 

Was I the only club that ran as many different classifiers as I could, regardless of easy or hard?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MikeBurgess said:

 

 

Was I the only club that ran as many different classifiers as I could, regardless of easy or hard?

 

Pretty much.  My locals setup 1 or 2 really obscure classifiers to be cute or super easy to setup classifiers. Not much variation with several of my local clubs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

 

I don't know your classification, but a lot of B class shooters have made master in IDPA. If your goal is simply getting to the highest classification, I'd consider shooting some IDPA from time to time. I always here USPSA shooters brag about how much higher the bar is compared to IDPA. But, maybe IDPA is on to something.

 

The idea of our system is the HHF is supposed to be based on what the top shooters can do. If the top shooters can shoot better than the HHF on a classifier and we keep the HHF low anyway, then we are diminishing the meaning of our entire classification system.

I have shot IDPA and it's not what I want to do.  On the road to improvement, I feel it is important to make goals.  For my first 1.5 years of USPSA, I never worried about my classification because I knew I had a lot of low lying fruit beyond how fast I could draw and reload.  At the end of last year, I found I was now beating many people with a classification above me and I felt my movement and other things were getting better so I made it one of my goals to work on classifier skills (draws and reloads) and raise my classification by one.  I would still work on the other things and had other goals, but moving up in classification was a goal I set for 2018.  If the all classifier match I shot this past weekend had been one week earlier, I would have met my goal.  It is not any more complex than that.  I never set a goal to be Master in IDPA because that is not what I shoot.  You may think this goal is stupid and that's fine, but every waking moment that I am not at work or with my family, I am doing something to improve myself in USPSA...so yeah, this goal was important to me.

Edited by B585
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, B585 said:

I have shot IDPA and it's not what I want to do.  On the road to improvement, I feel it is important to make goals.  For my first 1.5 years of USPSA, I never worried about my classification because I knew I had a lot of low lying fruit beyond how fast I could draw and reload.  At the end of last year, I found I was now beating many people with a classification above me and I felt my movement and other things were getting better so I made it one of my goals to work on classifier skills (draws and reloads) and raise my classification by one.  I would still work on the other things and had other goals, but moving up in classification was a goal I set for 2018.  If the all classifier match I shot this past weekend had been one week earlier, I would have met my goal.  It is not any more complex than that.  I never set a goal to be Master in IDPA because that is not what I shoot.  You may think this goal is stupid and that's fine, but every waking moment that I am not at work or with my family, I am doing something to improve myself in USPSA...so yeah, this goal was important to me.

 

I understand that the goal is important to you, and to many others, I really do.

 

But did you only want to be able to reach that goal only if the MD happens to use 6 of the easiest classifiers? 

 

As a MD I am used to getting grief from shooters close to a level change for selecting a classifier that knocks them down rather than helps them. I should be able to pick any classifier at random and you should be able to score appropriately for your skill level on it. with the adjustments to the HHF that should now be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MikeBurgess said:

 

 

As a MD I am used to getting grief from shooters close to a level change for selecting a classifier that knocks them down rather than helps them. I should be able to pick any classifier at random and you should be able to score appropriately for your skill level on it. with the adjustments to the HHF that should now be the case.

You shouldn't be getting grief from shooters.  This is why they changed the HHF.  Look at what percentage of GM's actually shot over 95% at major matches.  Statistics don't lie.  It was something like 5%

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, stick said:

You shouldn't be getting grief from shooters.  This is why they changed the HHF.  Look at what percentage of GM's actually shot over 95% at major matches.  Statistics don't lie.  It was something like 5%

I will second that motion... you should absolutely NOT be getting any grief, as an MD, for the classifier stages you select... even moreso if you are a NON-paid volunteer. (talk about looking a gift horse in the mouth!  WTF?)

 

Something tells me that the same ones griping are:

A.  the ones who don't help you set up

B.  don't help you tear down

C.  both A and B

 

And I would be willing to bet that they never give you input before the match about which classifier or classifiers they would like to see a week or two out before your local club match.

 

I was an MD, and at that time I only had so many full size pepper poppers to use for the whole match.  In turn, that limited my choices for classifier stages if I wanted to use a popper, especially to activate a mover, on other field course-ish type staged.

 

That said...I do remember seeing posts on this very forum years ago from some Indiana MD's who said they posted what the classifier stages were going to be at each monthly club match for the entire year ahead of time.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You shouldn't be getting grief from shooters.  This is why they changed the HHF.  Look at what percentage of GM's actually shot over 95% at major matches.  Statistics don't lie.  It was something like 5%
I guess I should have clarified "grief" as "o man why did you pick that one ?its a punch in the gut"
Nothing more than normal shooter banter



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MikeBurgess said:

I guess I should have clarified "grief" as "o man why did you pick that one ?its a punch in the gut"
Nothing more than normal shooter banter



Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
 

Ahhh....okay...

 

that's better...

 

I have been harping on it for years here on this forum and elsewhere that there should be a classifier stage records page(s).

 

That way USPSA members can see that a person actually shot CM-whatever with X amount of points in Y amount of time for say a 15._ _ hit factor even if it is higher than the set 100% HHF... and he/she did it at Z club/local match on Q date... in whatever division

 

And I know I am probably reaching for the stars with this next idea, buttttt...

 

if said super duper GM rockstar had a (youtube???) video link of his blazing run, then the classifier stage records page could also have that link.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Chills1994 said:

Ahhh....okay...

 

that's better...

 

I have been harping on it for years here on this forum and elsewhere that there should be a classifier stage records page(s).

 

That way USPSA members can see that a person actually shot CM-whatever with X amount of points in Y amount of time for say a 15._ _ hit factor even if it is higher than the set 100% HHF... and he/she did it at Z club/local match on Q date... in whatever division

 

And I know I am probably reaching for the stars with this next idea, buttttt...

 

if said super duper GM rockstar had a (youtube???) video link of his blazing run, then the classifier stage records page could also have that link.

 

I'd wear that link out checking for changes. Highest level performance fascinates me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Beef15 said:

I'd wear that link out checking for changes. Highest level performance fascinates me.

Annnnndddd...as kind of an incentive for USPSA HQ to provide the link to the video is...

 

those type of high level shooters could promote their sponsors by plugging their logos/fancy jersey in the video.

 

and for those UNsponsored shooters seeking sponsorships, that would be like a way to "audtion" for a sponsorship..."hey, look, this is,what I can do."

 

The other side benefit is that it shows the classifier stage was set up properly and shot as per the CoF/WSB description... kind of a QA/QC thing.

 

EDIT:  also, I hear the USPSA.org website has changed quite a bit.  I see their facebook posts all the time and they now have like a wrist watch brand or partnership, and I have seen HQ plug other gun related businesses.  I don't know how open the new website is to advertising or banner ads but having those at the classifier records video page would be....could be another revenue stream for USPSA.

Edited by Chills1994
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Chills1994 said:

Ahhh....okay...

 

that's better...

 

I have been harping on it for years here on this forum and elsewhere that there should be a classifier stage records page(s).

 

That way USPSA members can see that a person actually shot CM-whatever with X amount of points in Y amount of time for say a 15._ _ hit factor even if it is higher than the set 100% HHF... and he/she did it at Z club/local match on Q date... in whatever division

 

And I know I am probably reaching for the stars with this next idea, buttttt...

 

if said super duper GM rockstar had a (youtube???) video link of his blazing run, then the classifier stage records page could also have that link.

 

Not  bad idea.  Think about it for a minute.  It wouldn't be that hard seeing all of the scores are now uploaded.  I think a simple sort would be possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2018 at 3:29 PM, B585 said:

I have shot IDPA and it's not what I want to do.  On the road to improvement, I feel it is important to make goals.  For my first 1.5 years of USPSA, I never worried about my classification because I knew I had a lot of low lying fruit beyond how fast I could draw and reload.  At the end of last year, I found I was now beating many people with a classification above me and I felt my movement and other things were getting better so I made it one of my goals to work on classifier skills (draws and reloads) and raise my classification by one.  I would still work on the other things and had other goals, but moving up in classification was a goal I set for 2018.  If the all classifier match I shot this past weekend had been one week earlier, I would have met my goal.  It is not any more complex than that.  I never set a goal to be Master in IDPA because that is not what I shoot.  You may think this goal is stupid and that's fine, but every waking moment that I am not at work or with my family, I am doing something to improve myself in USPSA...so yeah, this goal was important to me.

 

I don't see think the goal is stupid at all. But making GM isn't supposed to be easy, and the HHF is supposed to be based on the best in the country. If it's not based on the best, then the letters have no meaning. I have a goal of moving up too, if I don't make it because of this change that just means I'm not good enough yet. Really if they (HQ) had been more open about the HHF all along, and made adjustments more often this probably wouldn't of been such a shock for so many. You make it seem like they've taken something from you and they haven't.

 

As much as it sucks you didn't make your goal, how about this. Some of the classifiers I've shot they lowered the HHF. So had they made this change a few months ago I'd of made GM already. As it is I may not make it now depending how my next two classifiers go. I wont think the system is broken, or that I got robbed if I don't make it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I don't see think the goal is stupid at all. But making GM isn't supposed to be easy, and the HHF is supposed to be based on the best in the country. If it's not based on the best, then the letters have no meaning. I have a goal of moving up too, if I don't make it because of this change that just means I'm not good enough yet. Really if they (HQ) had been more open about the HHF all along, and made adjustments more often this probably wouldn't of been such a shock for so many. You make it seem like they've taken something from you and they haven't.

 

As much as it sucks you didn't make your goal, how about this. Some of the classifiers I've shot they lowered the HHF. So had they made this change a few months ago I'd of made GM already. As it is I may not make it now depending how my next two classifiers go. I wont think the system is broken, or that I got robbed if I don't make it.

 

We are going to have to agree to disagree.  If this change was so needed (as some have argued) and changing the percentages is the only fair way to judge classifications, then it should be done retroactively so that everyone's classification is being determined on the same playing field.  Making a certain classification prior to 6-2-18 is not the same as making it after.  I personally do not want to see retroactive re-classifications, but that is only way a certain classification would be same for everyone.  I am sure the reason USPSA didn't do this is because they knew they would have even more p#ssed off members on their hands.  The fact is that any classification you received before 6-28-18 is much different than after (at least in Limited).

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 7:15 PM, MikeBurgess said:

 

I understand that the goal is important to you, and to many others, I really do.

 

But did you only want to be able to reach that goal only if the MD happens to use 6 of the easiest classifiers? 

 

As a MD I am used to getting grief from shooters close to a level change for selecting a classifier that knocks them down rather than helps them. I should be able to pick any classifier at random and you should be able to score appropriately for your skill level on it. with the adjustments to the HHF that should now be the case.

 

I don't nor do I think anyone should give the MD grief about the classifier they chose to run.  IMO the MD should try to use different classifiers they emphasize different skill sets and be similar to what a "normal" stage in USPSA would be.  I personally think, par time classifiers are not good indicators of a person's shooting abilities.

 

Again, I don't pick the classifier that I will be shooting at a particular match nor do I know what it will be prior to the match.  I look at different classifiers as testing different skill sets.  A guy I often squad with is the exact opposite type of shooter compared to me.  He is an accuracy guy and I tend to do better with speed.  This is reflected when we shoot different classifiers.  If the classifier emphasizes difficult shots, he is probably going to beat me.  If the classifier emphasizes speed, especially with spinning draws, I am going to beat him.  We both understand our strengths and weaknesses and work on the weaknesses accordingly. 

Edited by B585
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, B585 said:

 

We are going to have to agree to disagree.  If this change was so needed (as some have argued) and changing the percentages is the only fair way to judge classifications, then it should be done retroactively so that everyone's classification is being determined on the same playing field.  Making a certain classification prior to 6-28-18 is not the same as making it after.  I personally do not want to see retroactive re-classifications, but that is only way a certain classification would be same for everyone.  I am sure the reason USPSA didn't do this is because they knew they would have even more p#ssed off members on their hands.  The fact is that any classification you received before 6-28-18 is much different than after (at least in Limited).

 

  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
I don't nor do I think anyone should give the MD grief about the classifier they chose to run.  IMO the MD should try to use different classifiers they emphasize different skill sets and be similar to what a "normal" stage in USPSA would be.  I personally think, par time classifiers are not good indicators of a person's shooting abilities.
 
Again, I don't pick the classifier that I will be shooting at a particular match nor do I know what it will be prior to the match.  I look at different classifiers as testing different skill sets.  A guy I often squad with is the exact opposite type of shooter compared to me.  He is an accuracy guy and I tend to do better with speed.  This is reflected when we shoot different classifiers.  If the classifier emphasizes difficult shots, he is probably going to beat me.  If the classifier emphasizes speed, especially with spinning draws, I am going to beat him.  We both understand our strengths and weaknesses and work on the weaknesses accordingly. 
I think what you are missing is that your classifiers on record should be a mix of classifiers that went up and down. If all yours went up then you were basing your improvement only on the easiest classifiers.

The question is, is getting better at shooting the goal or is getting a certain class the goal? And if the class is the goal do you want that to be equally hard for everyone or easier if your MD likes to run easy ones and harder if they like to run hard ones?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I too think it should be retroactive. 

 

Yes, some were too easy but I still don't see there was a real problem overall. Not sure I ever will. But I also dont care so,....  l've yet to see a real instance of a paper GM at any of the clubs I shoot. Now saying that, I'm not at what I would call legit GM level but I'm pretty close to 95%. My problem areas are stupid mental mistakes during field courses. Like point shooting at steel.  Standing and shooting static targets at 10 yds isn't the problem, at least not to hit close to 95%.  Of course, I need to improve at that too!   I can honestly say, if I made it, I'd be a baby GM (heard cha-lee use that term). I don't think that's the same as a paper GM though.  A paper GM, in my mind, is someone who got lucky on classifers.  A baby GM is someone who shot well enough on 6 classifers and for the most part can shoot them at the level of 90-100%. IDK, maybe it's the same thing?  Both will get curshed by legit GM in a field course. 

 

To me the classification system is one thing and I'm not sure it makes sense to completely justify/compare someones major match performance by the system used to give them their classification. They're not the same. 

 

Anyways,... Just my $0.02... again. 

 

 

Edited by B_RAD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, B585 said:

 

We are going to have to agree to disagree.  If this change was so needed (as some have argued) and changing the percentages is the only fair way to judge classifications, then it should be done retroactively so that everyone's classification is being determined on the same playing field.  Making a certain classification prior to 6-2-18 is not the same as making it after.  I personally do not want to see retroactive re-classifications, but that is only way a certain classification would be same for everyone.  I am sure the reason USPSA didn't do this is because they knew they would have even more p#ssed off members on their hands.  The fact is that any classification you received before 6-28-18 is much different than after (at least in Limited).

 

  

 

So you're C class now, and it really bothers you that some guys made B class a month ago and you missed it by 3.5%? 

 

I don't really see how re-classification is needed. Sure some guys classifications will be a tiny bit higher than they should be. Those guys would still be at the bottom of what ever class they are in either way. Guys like you that are about to bump up a classification get to sandbag for another couple months.

 

This just doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Keep practicing, you'll make B and this silly 4% wont matter at all. If you're practicing you will not stay in C class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

 I too think it should be retroactive. 

 

I still don't see there was a real problem. Not sure I ever will. But I also dont care so,....  l've yet to see a real instance of a paper GM at any of the clubs I shoot. Now saying that, I'm not at what I would call legit GM level but I'm pretty close to 95%.  I can honestly say, I'd be a baby GM (heard cha-lee use that term). I don't think that's the same as a paper GM though.  A paper GM, in my mind, is someone who got lucky on classifers.  A baby GM is someone who shot well enough on 6 classifers and for the most part can shoot them at the level of 90-100%.  Both will get curshed by legit GM in a field course. 

 

To me the classification system is one thing and I'm not sure it makes sense to completely justify someones major match performance.

 

Anyways,... Just my $0.02... again. 

 

 

 

I like that way of looking at it, it's like when you first make B class and you're getting crushed by dudes who are about to make A, or are even shooting at M level but the system hasn't caught up to them yet. GM works the same way. Just getting to GM is really only the beginning of the journey, not the end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Racinready300ex said:

 

I like that way of looking at it, it's like when you first make B class and you're getting crushed by dudes who are about to make A, or are even shooting at M level but the system hasn't caught up to them yet. GM works the same way. Just getting to GM is really only the beginning of the journey, not the end.

YES! 

 

In my opinion, there are 3-4 levels of GM.  Paper, baby, legit, and BOSS!

 

Maybe BOSS, should be a new classification?! 

 

 

 

Edited by B_RAD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, B_RAD said:

GM is someone who shot well enough on 6 classifers and for the most part can shoot them at the level of 90-100%.  

 

And here lies the problem that needed fixed. 

would that be can shoot the easiest 6 classifiers at 90-100? or whatever classifiers? with the HHF (in limited for example) needing adjustments over a 44% window (+25% to -19% with a average of hardest 6 to average of easiest 6 being a 30.6% difference) that means depending on what classifiers a guy happens to shoot makes the difference between B and GM 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me it seems weird to make such a big change and not retroactively reset everyone.

 

Whether they get easier or harder is immaterial.  It skews the comparative use of the classification system the way it was done, imho.

 

I always thought the classification system was to compare yourself to others in your class, like see how you did relative to the other guys in B class, for example, but now you not sure if other guys are pre-change B's or post-change Bs, or would've been A's but started after the change and are post-change B's, etc.

 

Everyone who is classified from this date forward, all the newer shooters will be set right and can be equally compared, but everyone who was classed prior without retroactively resetting them it will have to be done by attrition as they either quit or die off, which could take decades lol, and by that time they'll have to reset the scores again.

 

I think changing the HHF to reflect reality was a great idea and the right thing to do.  I think not following through and resetting previously shot classifiers and adjusting everyone's classifications on the new baseline was a bad idea. 

 

 

 

 

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...